Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy.
Brad,
Anybody who thinks the measure of a Commander-in-Chief is his ability to give speeches has no business thinking he’ll be taken seriously. Whis is why you aren’t!
Obama’s reference to Truman in particular was intended to imply that as president he too would have the “stones” to take the country to war. Which is ridiculous on several different levels. In the first place, today’s Democrat party does not allow men who are not testosterone deficient. Just ask Zell Miller. Second, even he was elected president, Barack Obama is going to do exactly what his wife tells him to. No more… no less!
Bat One - 06:05am on 05/08/2008
The sum of a man’s intellect is NOT congruent with their abilities as a public speaker. Your discounting of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy achievements reflects the BDS of the MSM vice the actual record.
Rodney Graves - 06:05am on 05/08/2008
BO is wright (sorry - right). I remember those group photos of General Tojo, Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill just like it was yesterday.
patriotic - 06:05am on 05/08/2008
Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy.
I think you’re really looking for a motivational speaker to help you feel better about yourself.
dougee - 06:05am on 05/08/2008
I think you’re really looking for a motivational speaker to help you feel better about yourself.
Dougee,
You could very well be right! And like a typical, motivationally deprived liberal, brad looks to the government to provide for him. Pathetic!
Bat One - 07:05am on 05/08/2008
Hey, we have just finished two terms where the “commander in chief” couldn’t give a speech to a bunch of girl scouts, let alone conduct any type of foreign diplomacy. Let’s get the current moron out of office and get someone in that has their brain stem intact.
Any of the three candidates will be far better than what we currently have.
Yes, Brad, W is so bad at diplomacy, he’s succeeded in eliminating the Taliban from the world stage, he’s persuaded Libya to give up their WMD programs, and he’s prevented Al Qaida from mounting large scale attacks for over half a decade.
Contrast that with his predecessor, who enabled Al-Qaida to the point of considering terrorist attacks as a “criminal justice matter,” even when hundreds of people were killed, turned down Osama’s head on a platter no fewer than four times, and gave the largest supplier of heroin to Europe (the KLA) their own country. This person also set the stage for near constant attacks on an ally by insisting that ally conclude a completely fraudulent peace accord called “Oslo.”
There are a lot of things I don’t like about W, but to call him a complete failure in diplomacy is just to deny reality. The complete failure in diplomacy was his predecessor.
Bike Bubba - 08:05am on 05/08/2008
"blackwater"boob,
Did your mommy and daddy leave you home alone again?
Rodney Graves - 08:05am on 05/08/2008
Just a comment on the liberal mantra about the historical low approval ratings of the presidency. Somehow, the fact that the Democrat Congress approval ratings are the lowest ever recorded and are consistently 8-10% lower than President Bush’s is virtually unmentioned by the MSM. Perhaps the substance of what those “mellifluous” libs have to offer doesn’t resonate with the public, regardless of how slick the presentation may be?
patriotic - 12:05pm on 05/08/2008
Yes, you did. You rewrote the original statement to include our troops. And your further parsing is just reiterating that. We and they are the same thing!
No I didn’t. Yes you did. No I didn’t. Give me a break with this.
The word choice I used was not insulting. It was only your brain that took the two separate statements and equated them. I merely put them next to each other.
The fact that you can’t comprehend that fact makes quite a statement. I will remain silent on that as not to offend.
Expeting GWB to know exactly who the terrorists are is absurd.
And why then, do you expect Saddam to know? He didn’t even know that he didn’t know what half his army commanders were doing. Reverse logic is something beyond your grasp.
The details aren’t irrelevant as they deliberately contradict your assertions.
The 9/11 commission contradicts yours. The fact that one or two terrorists snuck in has no relevance to the accusation.
You said we had no enemies in Iraq.
The term “our enemies” was referring to AQ. AQ was not in Iraq in any way that differed from them being in our country or still being in our country, that is, until we invaded.
That’s bunk. Saddam was our enemy. Even if you ignore the other stuff...that alone makes your childish rant wrong.
Yeah, he was our “enemy”...but he was a harmless one. Again Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Hannitized - 08:05pm on 05/08/2008
Eunichized,
The only “break” you deserve is between the third and fourth cervical vertebrae.
Brad,
Anybody who thinks the measure of a Commander-in-Chief is his ability to give speeches has no business thinking he’ll be taken seriously. Whis is why you aren’t!
Obama’s reference to Truman in particular was intended to imply that as president he too would have the “stones” to take the country to war. Which is ridiculous on several different levels. In the first place, today’s Democrat party does not allow men who are not testosterone deficient. Just ask Zell Miller. Second, even he was elected president, Barack Obama is going to do exactly what his wife tells him to. No more… no less!
The sum of a man’s intellect is NOT congruent with their abilities as a public speaker. Your discounting of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy achievements reflects the BDS of the MSM vice the actual record.
BO is wright (sorry - right). I remember those group photos of General Tojo, Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill just like it was yesterday.
I think you’re really looking for a motivational speaker to help you feel better about yourself.
Dougee,
You could very well be right! And like a typical, motivationally deprived liberal, brad looks to the government to provide for him. Pathetic!
Yes, Brad, W is so bad at diplomacy, he’s succeeded in eliminating the Taliban from the world stage, he’s persuaded Libya to give up their WMD programs, and he’s prevented Al Qaida from mounting large scale attacks for over half a decade.
Contrast that with his predecessor, who enabled Al-Qaida to the point of considering terrorist attacks as a “criminal justice matter,” even when hundreds of people were killed, turned down Osama’s head on a platter no fewer than four times, and gave the largest supplier of heroin to Europe (the KLA) their own country. This person also set the stage for near constant attacks on an ally by insisting that ally conclude a completely fraudulent peace accord called “Oslo.”
There are a lot of things I don’t like about W, but to call him a complete failure in diplomacy is just to deny reality. The complete failure in diplomacy was his predecessor.
"blackwater"boob,
Did your mommy and daddy leave you home alone again?
Just a comment on the liberal mantra about the historical low approval ratings of the presidency. Somehow, the fact that the Democrat Congress approval ratings are the lowest ever recorded and are consistently 8-10% lower than President Bush’s is virtually unmentioned by the MSM. Perhaps the substance of what those “mellifluous” libs have to offer doesn’t resonate with the public, regardless of how slick the presentation may be?
No I didn’t. Yes you did. No I didn’t. Give me a break with this.
The word choice I used was not insulting. It was only your brain that took the two separate statements and equated them. I merely put them next to each other.
The fact that you can’t comprehend that fact makes quite a statement. I will remain silent on that as not to offend.
And why then, do you expect Saddam to know? He didn’t even know that he didn’t know what half his army commanders were doing. Reverse logic is something beyond your grasp.
The 9/11 commission contradicts yours. The fact that one or two terrorists snuck in has no relevance to the accusation.
The term “our enemies” was referring to AQ. AQ was not in Iraq in any way that differed from them being in our country or still being in our country, that is, until we invaded.
Yeah, he was our “enemy”...but he was a harmless one. Again Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Eunichized,
The only “break” you deserve is between the third and fourth cervical vertebrae.