Good to hear from you Hawk, and thank you for keeping us safe. You stay safe yourself. I’m praying for you and your friends.

We losing a lot of people here now and it’s not because of President Bush. It’s because of obama and you who voted for him.

hawkdriver on October 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Sorry hawk. I don’t know if people realize how bad indecision is. It’s worse than making the wrong decision. Stay safe, protect your buddies.

Only in liberal-land fantasy’s do people bleed blue.

Subsunk on October 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Bleedsblue…get an mirror and look at your forehead. That tattoo reads “Property of Subsunk”.

Sub….very well said sir.

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess theydemocrat congress made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

orange343 on October 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Oh yes, Obama did turn it around, he took a 400 billion dollar deficit and turned it into a 1.6 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. THE LARGEST DEFOICIT IN OUR NATION’s HISTORY.

Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Bush DESTROYED THE Taliban in weeks. These fools are coming from Iran and other countries while this fool has White House parties every week. Transparancy you can believe in.

Obama is engaging in a war he can’t win (against Fox) by ignoring a war that he should win in Afghanistan.

Why?

ted c on October 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

To win the healthcare battle, Obama wants victory for government run healthcare ONLY. The rest is just Alinsky tactics.

Petraeus is the guy that wrote the army manual on COIN.

That said, what does it say when the top Special Ops Counter-Terrorism guy comes in and says we need more troops or the mission will fail? If anything, you would think he would support the Biden-style focus on going after the bad guys with drones and special ops. When he instead fully endorses COIN and says we need more troops, I think that makes him that much more believable.

And he has the support of the ultimate COIN commander in Gen. Petraeus.

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess they made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

orange343 on October 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I beg to differ with you on the definition of success…
What Failure in Afghanistan?
By Fareed Zakaria
Monday, October 12, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101552_pf.html

At the heart of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request for a major surge in troops is the assumption that we are failing in Afghanistan. But are we really? The United States has had one central objective: to deny al-Qaeda the means to reconstitute, to train and to plan major terrorist attacks.
This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years.
Al-Qaeda is dispersed, on the run and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s.
Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks.
Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low.
All this is not an accident but rather a product of the U.S. presence in the region and efforts to disrupt terrorists, track funds, gain intelligence, aid development, help allies and kill enemies.

Del Dolemonte on October 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Haggis…are you Scottish?

It’s so clear that children are running the country now. We are fools to have elected him.

He has little time for that old War of Necessity, Afghan-gone-istan.

Because it has little political value for Barry’s eternal electioneering.

If you go into any coffee shop and just say the names Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, you will be shown the door.
jay12 on October 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

You need to find a better class of coffee shop to frequent.

I love it. Bush and Cheney get 7 years to wage war in Afghanistan. They have no success whatsover. Obama comes into office with the mess they made. He hasn’t turned it around in 9 months, so he’s “dithering”.

orange343 on October 22, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Clinton left his successor the 9/11 attacks. If he had done his job for 8 years instead of getting assorted getalifes in the Oral Office, we would never have had to go into Afghanistan in the first place.

Epic Fail, as usual.

His “military expert” was General Paul Eaton. Of course, Wolfman never told his gullible viewers that this guy was an advisor to Hillary’s campaign, and then did pro-O’bama campaign appearances, something even wiki confirms.

And of course the “panel” said it was “inappropriate” for a former VP to criticize the incumbent. When Wolfie, in a rare moment of sanity, mentioned former VP Algore repeatedly criticizing Bush, they all said what Gore did was “good” but what Cheney did was “bad”.

Laughed so hard I almost choked on my haggis.

Spathi on October 22, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Way to contribute. I don’t know how we got all the way to page 3 without your valuable insights.

Sure, that’ll play to the wingnuts, but Real America ain’t buying it.

…how did that man manage to get selected for VP.

In the real world, over 90% of Democrats said in 1998 that Iraq had WMDs. Many of them said the same thing 4 years later when they signed off on “Bush’s War”.

In Leftist-land, none of that ever happened. Despite the fact that all of the Democrats’ words to that effect are readily available online, on BleedsBleu’s ringed planet they were never spoken.

In the real world, Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept. indicted bin Laden in 1998. In Part 4 of that indictment, they specifically cite a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, especially on WMDs.

In Leftist-land, none of that ever happened either. Despite the fact that the entire indictment is freely available online, they refuse to read it.

In the real world, post-liberation captured Iraqi documents prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein actively supported terrorism outside of his country’s borders.

In Leftist land, those documents are false. This despite the fact that the translations were fact-checked for accuracy. In fact, Hot Air’s own Ed Morrisey paid outside translators out of his own pocket to confirm the veracity of one translator, “jveritas”. They both confirmed he was accurate in his translations.

Though, in defense of the generals and presidents involved in those wars, we didn’t choose them, we didn’t enter them on false pretenses, we didn’t have a year to plan the wars, we didn’t have overwhelming technical advantages (rag-tag colonies versus world’s greatest empire) and we won them all faster than Iraq.

I don’t think the Army War College will be inviting Cheney to lecture on strategy anytime soon. Nor should we listen to him, either.

Bleeds Blue on October 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM

1) The war in Iraq was not entered under false pretenses, unless you count the liars who keep screaming “Bush Lied!!!!” regardless of evidence.
2) The war in Iraq was over in a very short time, right at the point when Bush declared an end to major combat operations. You would remember it as the time he claimed “Mission Accomplished,” but all he claimed was that major combat operations had ended. What was left from then on was the occupation.

Maybe you expected chocolate unicorns and rainbows. I expected pretty much what happened: we won the fighting quickly, but the occupation stretched out over years.

So no, we didn’t win those wars faster than Iraq. Comparing occupation with combat is apples and oranges. In fact, the Revolution, and War of 1812 had no occupation. The Civil War had the Reconstruction, which lasted at least a decade or two. And we were occupying Germany for years after World War 2.

You completely mangled this comparison, but I seriously doubt you have the honesty to admit it

Dam, I picked a Hell of year to quit drinkin…

Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 2:34 PM

You should have consulted me before making that decision.

Next time you will know better.

Holger on October 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM

I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

*****

Whenever I see Cheney bulldozing the intellectual and ethical lightweights in DC I’m reminded of Mike Myer’s Sinatra impersonations. Substitute Rahm Emanuel for Billy Idol and a code pinker for Sinead O’Connor and you’ve got a perfect exchange over the Afghanistan impasse.

Frank Sinatra: Of course he is, you brownnoses. Look at you, you’re just swimming in my wake. Issue number three: [ points to Sinead ] This bald chick – what’s with her head? Let’s start with the chick. What gives, cue ball? I’m looking at you, I’m thinking: fourteen in the side pocket!

Sinead O’Connor: I can’t believe you’re talking about my hair with all the bloody starvation and suffering in the world right now.

…

Frank Sinatra: Shut up! Okay, issue number four: Milli Vanilli. What is this faggot crap? Uncle Fester!

Sinead O’Connor: I don’t understand the question.

Frank Sinatra: I’ll tell you what you better understand! Next time you see Old Glory riding up that pole, you better sing that anthem, darling! You’re lucky you’re a chick, or you’d be nothing but a stain on the road and a crewcut. Our founding fathers went to the mat for you, baby!

…

Billy Idol: I think you’re a bloody, stupid old fart!

Frank Sinatra: You’re all talk, blondie! You want a piece of me? I’m right here!

Billy Idol: Don’t provoke me, old man.

Frank Sinatra: You don’t scare me. I’ve got chunks of guys like you in my stool!

**Decides not to add anymore whiskey to her coffee…**

lovingmyUSA on October 22, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You can put some in mine!!!

Old Hippie Vet on October 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Dam, I picked a Hell of year to quit drinkin…