Assessing the Afghanistan situation Sunday, Santorum sought to pin the blame on Obama . . .

How novel.

Actually it is a very short story. The Republican mantra is simple--blame Obama irrespective of the facts, reality, or anything else

Pessimism has never been a road forward. Pessimism is just for people who dont understand and want to live in the past or "want their country back" from the indians.

Bush went into Iraq for the Oil. Period.

pessimism? no no. fearmongering. they have been at it for years. there is nothing new about it.

Why in the world do you go to the people that you're fighting with and tell them the date you're pulling out your troops? It makes absolutely no sense,” Romney said. “His naïveté is putting in jeopardy the mission of the United States of America and our commitments to freedom. He is wrong."

==========================

Romney's wrong. I don't remember him with this attitude when george bush set the timeline for our withdrawal from Iraq. To me it highlights the hypocricy of the rethugli-con right. It's ok when it's a rethugli-con thing but it's wrong when a Dem President does the exact same thing.

Romney isn't fit to be President. He is a weak, vasilating individual. Sadly, he is the best one the rethugs have to offer.

Leave it to Gingrich to hail a murdering soldier's action as Obama's fault.

“I think it's very likely that we have lost -- tragically lost -- the lives and suffered injuries to a considerable number of young Americans on a mission that we're going to discover is not doable,” Gingrich said in an interview on FOX News Sunday. He was reacting to the most recent bad news from Afghanistan, where a U.S. soldier went on a shooting spree and killed 16 Afghan civilians.

Notice how he did'nt mention anything about the loss of the 16 lives?

Next, notice how it was doable when Bush was in office but not Obama in office.

When we do exit Afghanistan, Gingrich will chastise the president for not leaving troops behind.

Bush didn't go in for the oil in Iraq. We have plenty of oil here in the USA. He went into Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein. Saddam tried to assassinate his father. It was all about revenge.

rest - Revenge yes, but assassination by Iraq sounds like a bad Monty Python sketch. Revenge for embarrassing his daddy by not getting caught the first time and remaining in power.

This just makes too much sense... Romney's funding Newt to stay in the race to keep Santorum on the sidelines. As such, Newt gets to bombard Obama on foreign policy... those that buy it will vote against Obama (and for Romney) but those that get pissed at Newt's criticism are pissed at Newt and NOT Romney.

See? It works for everyone this way.

That's why you'll see Newt take all the tough anti-Obama positions while Romney play silent.

Anyone remember the accusations toward Kerry in '04 calling him a "cut and run" coward?

Give it.... the very first thing that Bush ordered during the invasion of iraq was to secure THE OIL FIELDS! He exerted all kinds of pressure, Cheney, Rice, Ambassador to Iraq, and many others, to get Iraq's parliament to enter into 35 year, sweetheart oil contracts to be divided among Western oil interests. That is why he privatized Iraq's oil, so privatize enterprise could enter Iraq. The law would have also transferred control of Iraq oil production to a committee dominated by western oil interests.

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil--- http://www.alternet.org/world/43045/

Along with dire warnings against Iran getting nuclear weapons, Gingrich is offering a new pessimism about the U.S. ability to salvage Afghanistan and a new emphasis on the limits to U.S. power.

The only reason why they are pessimistic is because they actually have NOTHING to beat Obama. What? Are they going to say that they ar better off when Obama kill Bin Ladden, as Bush just spent money for a personal revenge?

The record of Presiden Obma in foreign policy is awesome. AND he did most of the job without the dumb Republicans, that all they do is crate problems and obstructionism.

Lindsey Graham was a supporter of Obama in the old days. Grover Norquist must have sent him a horse head, because he had turned to the other side of the spectrum. A total Jerk.

The GOP has absolutely no possible way to beat Obama in foreing policy. Try in the next 4 years, maybe you will catch some other iconic A***E just like Cheney, and bring him to justice for crimes against humanity

Little George sent America to war in Iraq because he though he was going to be a hero. Dick and Donald told him so. GAS Greed, Arrogance, and Stupidity thats how we got into Iraq.

Bring our troops home. Now. They're tired, they're on the edge. And we don't need to start another war with Iran.

Ron Paul 2012

No more warmongering and nation building by either party! Let's rebuild our own damn country and reclaim our Constitutional liberties.

Ron Paul 2012

Gingrich said if America could develop energy self-sufficiency, that would allow it “to back off from that region, not take primary responsibility for the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and say to the Chinese and the Indians and the Europeans -- you have a problem, but it's not necessarily America's problem.”

Sorry Mr. Gingrich a world commodity doesn't work like that. Unless he is going to propose a ban on oil and gas exports, which isn't free market, then any impact on oil supplies from the Middle East to Europe and Asia, will still cause prices to rise in the US. Either Mr. Gingrich doesn't understand economics or he is hoping the people reading/listening to him don't.

American Girl-724855

How obtuse are you? If we went in to Iraq for oil, where is it? We didn't take their oil. The very least we could have done was to give the oil to the people of Iraq. We didn't even do that. They would have nothing to fight over if they were all millionaires, now would they?

John, Iraq told bush to shove his "oil law" and told him that Iraq's oil will REMAIN in Iraqi hands! They are selling it at world prices to whoever they choose. If bush had gotten HIS way, Iraqis oil would be under the control of Western oil interests.

Document Reveals
Mr. Bush Took Aim at Iraqi Oil Before the 2000 Election

Answers Why Mr. Cheney Has
Fought So Hard to Keep Secrets

http://www.yuricareport.com/Energy/BushWarPlansFoundInEnergyPolicy.html

The reasons we went to war in Iraq were many. Picking one or two is unbalanced and unacceptable. Go back to what Bush said. The Emphacisis was

1) Change the face of the Middle east. Iraq was picked because of EVERYONE'S belief that Iraq was seeking, maintaining or developing WMD. Hussein's sons were expected to be worse than Saddam. Pakistan has always been an unreliable partner, so establishing another "friend" would be an improvement.

2) El Quaida was believed to be operating in Iraq with the cooperation of Saddam. We now know it wasn't with the cooperation of Hussein, but they were 30 operating there.

3) The only oil part that was correct was to insure that Iraq's oil would continue to flow. To get exclusive rights to Iraqi oil was really done in response to Left wing criticism that we ought to get a bigger share to pay for the war.

4) The revenge factor - to this day, there isn't any shread of credible evidence of this. The only evidence is fact that could have lead to the conclusion, minus any communication verbally or in written form.

Bush didn't go in for the oil in Iraq. We have plenty of oil here in the USA. He went into Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein. Saddam tried to assassinate his father. It was all about revenge.

That's why Bush went but Bush was a pawn. Cheney went so his buddies and his own investments could be multiplied thousands of fold. He went to force up the price of oil. He went to enrich Haliburton. He went to support the black market dealings of big business. He went for the 1%

I think it will come out in twenty years that it was decided to go into Iraq because it made a better killing field than Afghanistan. It drew in radicals from the entire region that wanted to have a chance to kill Americans.

Not everyone believed Iraq was a threat, and most who did believe had been duped by the lies and fabricated evidence that Bush was parading at the time. Many government officials and military officers were against the invasion in 2003.

On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that "many senior U.S. military officers" including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working.

Brent Scrowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President George H. W. Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Don't attack Saddam," arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict which should be the U.S.'s highest priority in the Middle East. The next month, Gen. Hugh Shelton former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism. By January 19, 2003, TIME Magazine reported that "as many as 1 in 3 senior officers questions the wisdom of a preemptive war with Iraq."

On June 16, 2004 twenty seven former senior U.S. diplomats and military commanders called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change issued the following statement against the war:

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/06/16_diplomats-military-commanders.htm

The point is, many high ranking former and current government officials and military officers questioned the president's reasons behind the invasion and the need to take down the government of Iraq. The people voicing these concerns weren't civilian peace protesters but, in fact, were senior members of the diplomatic corps and high-ranking military commanders. These individuals were in a unique position to see through the tissue of lies perpetrated by Bush and tried to head off and stop the illegal invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovereign nation that represented no credible threat against the US or its neighbors.

DB akron, There isnt a shred of credible evidence that support anything you said!

I'm still amazed at the people defending Bush.

The loss of 4000+ American lives can not be tallied. Those that died had family and friends who were affected. Jobs they held were affected.

I was told our enemy was in Iraq. I was then told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction with the intent to do us harm. I was told Saddam was enriching uranium. I was told 30 documents were sent with Powell to the UN to prove the case. I was told we would be liberating a country supressed by tyrany.

So, was I for the invasion of Iraq? Darn skippy. And so was anyone at the time. But as the facts came out, I began to feel deceived. The documents to the UN was falsified. No WMDs found. No uranium anything. Cheney had ties to Haliburton. Empty bunkers from times past were found. It seems Bush Sr. had gotten all of them the last time. Then, our president, the great liberator, showed up in Irag and is greeted with an insult by getting shoes thrown at him. Then, I find out that Bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora. Why? Because we had to invade Iraq. The president's response to the number one most wanted not being found... he wasn't a concern.

And yet still, today, people rise up to remind us what a great president Bush was compared to Obama.

The party of doom and gloom is pessimistic? Really? Just once I want to hear a Republican cheer American success or constructively suggest ways to improve America. I want to hear them govern and campaign based on something other than fear. Republicans are a disgrace to traditional American values of optimism and action.

It's easy for the right-wing to be so negative about what they don't understand. Foreign Policy is complex, complete with diplomatic negotiations. It deals with a lot of grey issues in between the black and the white on a case-by-case basis. All of which requires communication skills, empathy, patience, analysis, fact-gathering, cosmopolitan experiences, compromise, and a deeper understanding of international situations that the right-wing fails to understand -- since they want everything to be simple ...just like their fear-driven, Fox -News-fed, conservatively-narrowed minds. With them, everything is either their way, or no way.

we did not go to Iraq to take the oil,just stop it from moving which is exactly what we did. That caused gas prices to skyrocket. So the Bush family and their "oily friends" stood to gain a great deal just by having the Iraqi oil sit there.

"Mission Accomplished"

I find it hysterical to see people on the left defending an interventionist foreign policy - my guess is they are doing so because they don't want to go against Obama - even though his foreign policy is much closer to the traditional Republican policies.

As for Newt - I'm glad to hear a Republican say, what I think is, the truth. We cannot (and probably should not) control the rest of the world. This approach will bankrupt our country. We do need to minimize areas where we are dependent on other countries - such as reducing our need for oil imports. I strongly disagree with Newt on his social conservative positions, but I agree with his comments in this article about foreign policy.

I suspect your guess is wrong Ron-1861300. Here's why:

Bush would have left troops there in Iraq.

Bush would let Bin Laden fade into history, living a long life, and dying of natural causes.

Bush would not have refocused troops to the real enemy, Afghanistan.

I have no problem with using other countries' resources. I say, let's use theirs before we use ours and sway the price as best we can. Save ours for when the world runs dry. By then, we will have found alternate energy and those stuck on oil can pay our price.

Apparently, lil' Newton doesn't understand that the end game for Afghanastan is to just get out. "WE" got bin Laden and anyone who has taken 1 course in world history knows that Afghanastan is a hopeless cause for outsiders. Iraq, as we dismantled it, is an unfixable disaster. Newton is not the brightest lightbulb to ever come along.

But he is the most brilliant guy in any room. Don't believe me? Just ask him.

Newty is as legend in his own mind.

Bush Jr. stiffed Iran's unilateral negotiation offer in 2003. In retaliation, they kicked off the Iraq insurrection. Had it not been for the GOP Neocons, we could have had our troops out of middle east combat eight years ago.

Britain ruled this whole area for over 150 years and could never truly control it so I doubt that we can in 40 years. We should never had become involved there . The Soviets tried to own it but even they had to concede defeat. we should quit trying to go back to empire building. That time is passed!

So have Democrats...

Not enough Democrats to count it as a party stance. Take a look at the Iraq resolution and you can see how anti-war the Democrats aren't.

Jingoism is a mark of both parties they just object to the others' wars for political reasons while promoting their own. When push comes to shove both parties are tools of the military-industrial complex.

That's the problem with Democrats regarding entering into wars. Their memories are selective and they choose too ignore the actions of their leaders as soon as it serves their purpose to do so.

TO: Lanikai Ron who wrote:

"That's the problem with Democrats regarding entering into wars. Their memories are selective and they choose too ignore the actions of their leaders as soon as it serves their purpose to do so."

Democrats were lied into war just like the rest of us were by George "Curveball" Bush.

Obama / Biden 2012

Bush fabricated evidence and lied about the nature of the non-existent WMD that he claimed were in Iraq. That Democrats...or anyone else, for that matter...were taken in by Bush's lies says less about the suckers than it does about the liar. Supporting the liar now that the evidence that no WMDs existed has been revealed by the CIA and the UN is more than merely despicable. It is the lowest form of willful ignorance in which the right wing lunatic fringe can indulge.

Shame.

Lanikai Ron

That's the problem with Democrats regarding entering into wars. Their memories are selective and they choose too ignore the actions of their leaders as soon as it serves their purpose to do so.

As opposed to the problem with Republicans which is to NEVER question their leaders...period!

Everyone knew the intelligence was BS before they voted on it. Don't sell that, "they got lied into the war nonsense," EVERYONE excepting maybe Colin Powell knew the intelligence was phony. The ones who voted for it did so because they didn't want to get caught up in that whole rah-rah flag waving, freedom-fries BS and lose their cushy career.

It's true enough the intelligence was fabricated but everyone knew it. Don't use its fabrication as a cop-out, be honest, the party line of the Democrats is just as pro-war as the GOP. Guys like Kucinich are the exception and look what they did to him for breaking from the party line so often.

"EVERYONE excepting maybe Colin Powell knew the intelligence was phony."

I just KNOW you have evidence to support that statement. No? Then you are trying to paint the Dems with the same bloody brush as Bush, and that isn't going to fly. You just lying to cover the tracks of your favorite thief and murderer, Bush.

What I said earlier about the low form of willful ignorance exhibited by the right wing lunatic fringe still stands.

American Girl and Sailcat... Bill Clinton, his Secretary of Defense, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle are just some of those Democrats that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Many of them said that during the Clinton Administration, long before Bush took office. George Bush must have believed them and their intelligence. Was Bush lied to? You two have provided a perfect example of the pentient for the selective memories of the blind left. But don't believe me, look it up for yourselves, or doesn't that serve your interests?

"...are just some of those Democrats that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."

That is the central lie of the Republican position: these people most definitely did not say Hussein had WMDs: they said they believed Bush's information that falsely claimed Iraq was in possession of WMDs, which was, of course, a lie.

Shame.

Here's a quote from another Democrat:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Here's another:

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

A couple more:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

Finally, let's not leave these two Democrat heroes out:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I hope this clears up the confusion and slander coming from the left about this. There are plenty more quotes from Democrats goding Bush into Iraq. Not that he needed it though.

@DanTheManOfVegas: Couldn't agree with you more. Even mature "Johnson Grass" in my area knew the whole damn mess was a damn lie. What the hell though, are we doing there? Is it really anything more than guarding the oil for the worlds money mongers? Does Israel need that much protection? Are we doing all this for Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait? Is It a long term strategy against China? If It's for any of these reasons I believe there are much better ways to accomplish all. It has the appearance of fools hunting their shadows during an overcast night. Regards

Lanikai Ron

Just who do you think gave that info to the Dem's? All the claptrap lies came from the Bush admin. The only WMD Iraq had came from Ronnie Ray-Gun through Iran -Contra, a CIA drugs for weapons opp. WE the US gave Iraq GAS to kill Iranians and instead Saddam used it on the Kurds. Dickey boy was involved as was Rummy in giving the gas to Saddam. Check were the information comes from before you blame the messengers of the lies!

Lanikai Ron

You posted most of the statements all the way back to George Bush Senior. Heck, one goes all the way back to Bill Clinton.

Then you post one of Hillary Clinton stating clearly, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock..." knowing good and well that the intelligence reports were falsified.

Joe, it would help if you paid attention to when these quotes were made. Are you saying that in 1998, President Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were getting their intelligence from Bush and the Republicans? All I can do is provide the quotes. That's what I mean Joe, all you lefties just read from ythe playbook your Democrat handlers give you. No need to check the facts, huh? If you folks could just think for yourselves and do the research, you wouldn't come off making butts of yourselves like this.

Bosslimo, Once again the lefties do not want to read the facts. None of the quotes I gave you went back to the Bush Sr. administration. The years these quotes were made is right there for you to read. Instead of making crap up, prove those quotes wrong. But once again, you lefties have a pentient for believing only what your handlers want you to believe.

Doesn't matter, One man got us into the war in Iraq. And one man lost that war. George W Bush......

Berndog, that's more crap and I hope you know it. President Bush entered this war with the majority of the Senate and House behind him. Read the saber rattling statements from the left going back to Bill Clinton's Administration. Have you noticed that all those lefties here who were spouting that Democrat lie that Bush provided false intelligence to back up entering into Iraq have suddenly put their tails between their legs and run for another message thread to spread their slander? Bush was no hero of mine, but the mindless followers of the Democratic line of BS need to know the truth. This country has never gone to war based on one man's decision. More BS from the Democrat playbook. You didn't think for one minute that the Clintons, Pelosi, Kerry and the rest would admit they were talking about going after Saddam way before Bush took office, do you? Hell no, they all just got together and said we are going to say we were misled by somebody else and that works for those that choose to follow them with rings in their noses.

Since Lanidai Ron is deliberately feeding irrelevant information that is intended to deceive and not to edify, the subject of Bush's lies and the people who willingly support those lies is illustrated quite nicely. That is to say, Bush is a liar and Lanikai Ron accepts them and tells second-hand lies knowing full well they are falsehoods.

He and others of his ilk are the reason the GOP is circling the drain.

@Sailcat#5.19: You are correct. Conditions for the avalanche of lies were created and exploited by the "liar in Chief" Bush, and his Lieutenants, which overwhelmed the careful and skeptical. While Saddam wasn't liked, He was being contained by Clinton, and in fact no democrat ever brought up war with Iraq. They did in fact support the gang of liars after they said the avalanche was upon us.

Bush fabricated evidence and lied about the nature of the non-existent WMD that he claimed were in Iraq. That Democrats...or anyone else, for that matter...were taken in by Bush's lies says less about the suckers than it does about the liar. Supporting the liar now that the evidence that no WMDs existed has been revealed by the CIA and the UN is more than merely despicable. It is the lowest form of willful ignorance in which the right wing lunatic fringe can indulge.

Okay, wait just one second here. This is NOT even remotely what happened. There was plenty of evidence that there were no WMDs and the democrats turned just as blind an eye to it as the republicans.

At the time there were people running around everywhere saying the reasons were trumped up but congress chose to ignore this.

Because their corporate masters wanted the war. It made them filthy rich

How sad it is that everyone forgets the patriotIsm. At that time, going against action in Iraq was the same as treason. I remember the president stating that if we weren't for it we were against the United States.

Everybody was for it. Sales of ribbons (Support our Troops), Tee-Shirts (Fighter Jets depicted in deserts), military had the largest rise in volunteers, etc.

Everyone was conned (including Democrats).

Sailcat and Mac Forrester, All that anyone can do is put the facts in front of you, which I did. Instead of calling me a liar, prove it. These quotes from Democrats saying Saddam has WMD's and something must be done about it go back to before Bush was President. You two gotta get off the suds boys.

One more comment for Lanikai

You are confusing the documented use of chemical weapons by Sadam against his own citizens with the fabricated claims of Sadam's development of nuclear weapons.

Funny thing about all those screaming about the use of chemicals on his own people and using that to justify the invasion. Apparently it took people more than 15 years for them to get outraged over it.

That would be 0-4-1.

The problem is our military is designed to fight the military of other modern nations (ie people we are never going to fight). The people we actually fight are of course at a distinct disadvantage in all areas except one, home field. That inevitably leads to a guerrilla war every time which is something that can only be won by pacification, a strong suit of the Romans but a weak point for any modern nation, especially those who are bound by human rights.

Why do you consider Iraq and Afghanistan "losses?" What do you consider "victories?" I did not agree with the war in Iraq, but we did remove Saddam from power. In Afghanistan, our mission was to get Bin Laden, we did that. Since you consider Lebanon a loss, do you consider Bosnia and Kosovo as victories? You also forgot that our mission in Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait, we did that as well.

There are some of us, not enough apparently, who remembered the disaster suffered by the USSR during its invasion of Afghanistan. Should have been a lesson for the US but our hubris and "we are #1" mentality prohibited a sober assessment of what we were getting into.

Dan hit the nail on the head. We lose wars because we don't let our military run them. The elite military leaders in DC have become more like politicians than soldiers. When we fight an enemy that does not respect human rights and uses the population as human shields while our own troops are restricted under rules of engagement that seem designed at a PTA meeting, we have lost before we even go in.

lanikai, we have "restrctive" ROE because 1. We are suppose to adhere to the laws of war and 2. We are there to protect the general population as much as "kill the bad guys" Killing indiscriminately tends to turn the general population into "the bad guys." I did 2 combat tours and the ROE is not so restrictive that we could not complete our mission.

Rad, If we're going to fight a war, then let's fight it and not handcuff our troops to make us look better than the bad guys. When the bad guys and the populations that side with them or let them use their villages to hide in and their populations to hide behind, then those populations are the enemy as well. Once it is understood that you side with the enemy, you pay a dire price, it would be much harder for the bad guys to find safe haven. I'm not for war, but if we must get involved, we should make sure that nobody else ever wants to face us in war again. As someone who served one tour in Vietnam as a Warrant Officer helicopter pilot, I can tell you we will never win a war again unless we unleash our military. And just as important, we have no General MacArthur's leading our troops anymore. I don't like the sound of what I just said, but shouldn't we all be against of sending our best to fight these politician run wars? If we're not going to fight to win, then we shouldn't be fighting.

I like to bash Newt as much as the next guy. But this is a relatively intelligent appraisal. A lot better than following Santorum into a holy war in the middle east.

One more intelligent comment, and I may start thinking that we have an alternative to Obama that is not worse than Obama. I understand that picking a President is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils; just that no party has put up any one that would do less damage than Obama so far.

Yup, totally agree.

And democrat want to sit on public forums and paste and cut out of the lefty manifesto.

The Id cards are free to low income people, they have 8 months to get an Id card.

There is only one reason why anyone would be qgainst a photo id for voters, you expect to vote illegally or gain from illegal votes.

Hey Robert

There was more than one point I made. But like usually you far right individual only want to pick and choose what you want. Why don't you look at the whole picture and see that the Republicans are just a bunch of fast talking communist.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Honestly put the crack pipe down.

Are you seriously so blinded by the rhetoric that your calling someone OTHER than the left communists? Please pick up a book and read some history before now and November. Look at what is going on in this country right now, like the latest health care mandate forcing religious groups to pay for abortions and tell me who is moving us closer to a communist system.

Look at the model of redistribution of wealth being implemented by this administration and tell me who is communist.

Almost every point you tried to make, is exactly what the left is trying to do right under your nose.

Please get a clue.

Everyone here needs to get a clue. This is not about communism or anything close to it. It is about a system of government where you can protect the rights of the individual while still pursuing a greater good for all. You don't have to pick the far left or the far right. What used to be great about this country is that very understanding. Now, the far right's sense of personal entitlement and the far left's "do-gooder" mentalities have us divided, and that is represented in our system of government. If you want the government to be better, we all need to be a lot less polarized.

Robert, only Indiana's ID law provides low income people with an ID suitable for voting. There is only one reason to require an ID to vote, those who want to suppress people's right to vote.

There is only one reason not to require an ID to vote. Make it as easy as possible for ineligible voters to vote and maybe vote again and again. Showing a valid ID is part of most any serious transaction a person can makes. Voting in public elections fits that category in my miond. The only issue the left uses to counter those that want our voters to prove they are who they say they are, is that the poor don't have ID's. How do they qualify for welfare, food stamps, etc wirhout identification? Seems like the left is encouraging voter fraud by coming out against this.

"Republicans want smaller government yet they want use the government to force their religious beliefs on everyone. Believe what my religion says or you can’t work here." ....You don't have to agree with the religion but government shall not interview with the beliefs to support or express it, ESPECIALLY when the employer is the religious entity. Its called freedom and she has the freedom to head her ass to someother law school for her training and not force people of Catholic faith to have to support her extramarital recreational sex. They have the freedom to decide that their coverage shall encompass their beliefs only. Sorry progressives (leftists):o(

robert argent - Can you document the massive voter fraud that justifies voter ID requirements? If not massive, how about just enough to be a concern. Here's a hint...you won't find it because it doesn't exist! This is voter suppression plain and simple. Thomas Jefferson would not be pleased...but I'm sure Charles and David Koch are.

The next step for the GOP is to institute a poll tax. It's hateful political ideology is taking down a dangerous path.

MSgt: Any good lawyer knows that you only have to prove ONE stupid comment wrong, and the rest are wrong by inference.

Your stupid rant was much too long to read.

Oh, and ALL of the women who get pregnant were not raped. (There goes that stupid statement)

If you didn't read MSgt's post, how can you hope to make a credible response to anything contained in it? If ignorance is bliss, you must be thrilled right now.

Get a clue, Obama is just as in bed with the capitalists as most Republicans. They both fight over redistributing wealth using taxes, etc., but neither qualifies as a communist or a socialist. Check with the communists and socialists; they don't think Obama is in their camp.

Santorum, however, is marching towards a historic movement. A fundamental christian movement from the last century, that excluded gays, gypsies, Jews and other non-Christians. This party was also founded in the depths of a bad recession, and pushed for a stronger, christian military and a final solution to that immigrant problem. They were also close with the Pope and the Vatican. Fortunately, Adolf's little movement finally was stopped, at the cost of millions of lives. The rich also loved fascism; after all, Mussolini got the trains to run on time.

It's hard to say enough bad things about Republicans, all of which is true.

Sorry for the poor spelling.

. . . and intelligent discourse and spelling, obviously.

I hear that Republican propaganda all the time about someone "stealing your wages". What a bunch of crap.

How about you post a credible link that shows liberals never worked, never paid taxes, never owned homes, never owned businesses, never went to church, never voted, never fought in wars, never supported their families and only Republicans pay taxes toward running the country.

While you're looking for that credible link see if you can find one that says there are no Republicans on welfare, medicaid or unemployment.

Maybe all the dems should write on their tax forms to go after the Republicans for the money because in their own deluded, ignorant world they think they are the only ones that work.

Good luck finding those links-because your ASSUMPTION is based on pure Republican propaganda for the feeble minded and you fell for it.

Yup, but you're A-OK with the corporate elite taking hand outs and stealing from the taxpayer to the tune of billions in the form of subsidies and bogus tax breaks and loop holes.

That's why nobody takes your ilk seriously. You want to take from the poor and struggling and continue to give to the fattest, richest parasites in our system.

You can always tell when a dem lefty runs out of facts or anything to say, he immediate starts yelling racis.

That bis page 126 of the LEFTY MANIFESTO

Hahaha racism.... Thats a good one.

Yup, because there are absolutely no racists left in our society, eh? And those non-existent racists sure don't hate Obama because of his race, it's because of his policies right?

I say, go ahead and play the card when it's the right one.

You are irrational, the relations with every country in the Mid East that threw out an authoritan regime is now being controlled or in danger of being controlled by Muslims..

It is bad now and will get worse, Obama should have been impeached for his illegal and unprovoked attackon Libya and we have every home of starting impeachment proceedings if the dweeb in the white house does anything in Syria.

Robert, since the vast majority of the population is Muslim, who else would control those countries? As for the "attack" on Libya, it was not illegal and unprovoked. It was authorized by the UN Security Council. The President had authorization to commit forces to Libya under the UN charter, which was signed and ratified by this country. You wing nuts are just calling Obama a war criminal because you actually had a President commit war crimes. Kinda like how y'all love to put "gate' at the any conceived controversy.

Hey Robert

Since the Middle Eastern nations are comprised of mostly Muslim people, who else do you think would come to power there? I guess to ignorant right wingers like yourself, all who follow Islam must be inherently bad.

Roberts point appears to be a concern that they will be controlled by the church and church law which, when given power tends to be extremely fundamentalist.

Just like the teapublicans and the radical religious right are trying to do here?

You betcha.

Ted the issues with a totalitarian church state are very different than a faith based view on morality in a multi branch government.

Gas prices were higher in June 2008, try again.

NON Socialist/Marxist

They have really got you brain washed. Tell me where the trickle down has worked. Look at any of your resources. The got richer and the poor got poorer. Bill in congress to deny health for any reason. You are the one that need to get a clue. All the point I have made are current talking points of the republican candidate now. I guess if you had a clue you would know that.

NON-Because they are not the highest gas prices in history.

The highest gas prices were during the Bush administration and I know that for a fact-I was filling the tanks on a motor home in West Virginia and nearly fainted.

If you think either Bush or Obama has anything to do with gas prices-you are sadly misinformed. Maybe you should do some research on the reason the prices are high. Speculators is on the top of the list and that was admitted to by the oil companies.

Please tell me who in the GOP is calling for us to invade Iran? Please list names. Thanks!

McCain, Romney, John Bolton, need I continue?

And don't forget Santorum.

Also, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina can't wait for the US to invade Syria on its way to invading Iran.

The pessimistic outlook is for newt shutting up.

Gingrich said if America could develop energy self-sufficiency, that would allow it “to back off from that region, not take primary responsibility for the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and say to the Chinese and the Indians and the Europeans -- you have a problem, but it's not necessarily America's problem.”

How many times has this been said since 1974, (Hint: MEOW)

Wikipedia Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work, but the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention."
The 18th century new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions like expulsion and other severe career damage. Not so in the arts, which not only have resisted in their long-established tradition of copying as a fundamental practice of the creative process, but with the boom of the modernist and postmodern movements in the 20th century, this practice has been heightened as the central and representative artistic device. Plagiarism remains tolerated by 21st century artists.
Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence, and cases of plagiarism can involve liability for copyright infringement.

But it won't be to Georgia. He now lives in McLean, VA.

I don't think so. Osama Bin Laden is Swimmin with the Fishes...

Remember the 15 of the 19 Saudi Hijackers that Bin Laden sent crashing into the Worlds Trade Center or do you have a selective Memory?

These were Saudis that attacked us, Not Iraqis, Afghanis or Pakis???

We should have turned Saudi into a Parking Lot and took their Oil!

Define "victory" in Afghanistan. Did Bush make a "VERY POOR STRATEGIC DECISION" When he agreed to an announce the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?

I don't think so. Osama Bin Laden is Swimmin with the Fishes...

Remember the 15 of the 19 Saudi Hijackers that Bin Laden sent crashing into the Worlds Trade Center or do you have a selective Memory?

These were Saudis that attacked us, Not Iraqis, Afghanis or Pakis???

We should have turned Saudi into a Parking Lot and took their Oil!