Ah, I see Decaf is back after spending a week trying to compose a witty reply to my last post. Well, half-witty, anyway.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and he failed to act on specific warnings.
Wrong.
Really?
Yes. What part of "wrong" are you having trouble with? I've lined out Clintion as the root of the cause, now it's up to you to suck up your pride and live with it. This part of our debate is over, and you lost.
LOL. The part of I am having a problem with is the fact that Bush was President on 9/11/01, which means it happened on his watch. And we have already gone over the warnings he had received. I guess golf and chopping wood on the old ranch were more important to him than the safety of the American people. However, I'm sure the historians will note your delusions as they write the history books.

Or not.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup.
Innocent of being directly involved with 9/11? Probably.
Probably? I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof Saddam was involved with 9/11, being as since you did not submit one iota of evidence and all. Just can't get around that fact, can you?

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Now, was he an imminent threat to our national security? No.
Have you proven, once again, that you still have no idea what the hell you're talking about? Yes. I've already explained why he was an imminent threat in an earlier response to Wilco.
Would this explanation be like the one above where you decided that Bush was not really President when 9/11 occurred, and therefore it did not happen on his watch? Perhaps you can restate it again, then, how he was an imminent threat to us. Did it involve imaginary WMD's? We'll call it "The Delusions of Decaf".

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Hell, he did not even have control of his own airspace, for crying out loud.
Hell, since when do homicidal wackjobs need control of their airspace to plot and commit mass murder?
It usually helps to control ones airspace if one wants to drop bombs, launch missiles, etc. on or at ones neighbors. So who did Saddam mass murder (horrible as it was), besides his own people?

And speaking of that, if mass murder of ones own people is rationale to take out "homicidal wackjobs", what has Bush, Cheney, Rice and company been doing, military wise, while the Sudanese government has been waging a war of genocide against it's own citizens, killing hundreds of thousands (so far) in Darfur? It would seem, under your reasoning, we could and should have taken him out long ago. Just one of numerous examples.

Or are the rules different if they have no oil?

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Could he have been a threat down the road sometime? Perhaps, but so could any number of leaders in other countries. Iran and North Korea, for example. Are you advocating preemptive action there as well???
Perhaps"? What an idiot ... would've loved to see you try selling that hogwash to Kuwait, and the Kurds.
Or the victims of genocide in Darfur that Bush is using our troops to stop? Wait, he isn't. Never mind.

Just how far do you think an unfettered Saddam Hussein would have gone, Peacenik?
Moot point. He was quite fettered.

I'm advocating preemptive action against countries with a history of say, attacking a weaker nation and burning up chunks of their oil fields, for example. Get the picture?
It's always easier to make up the rules of engagement after the fact, isn't it? And there is the reference to oil, too. Guess that answers my question from above about why we have taken no military action in Darfur, doesn't it?

And you need to explain how if that was really our dimwit-in-chiefs reason, why he and his crew had to make up all that crap about WMD's and such, and present it to Congress and the American people as fact? Bush's rationale for war was not "Saddam did this in the past", it was "Saddam currently has these WMD's, we know he does, and he intends to use them."

Which, of course, was a lie.

Actually, I'm a veteran of the Air Force. I just thought "ArmyStrong" would be kind of a catchy moniker.
Actually, I'd say the odds of you being the Easter Bunny are greater than you having been in any branch of the military.

So, regarding your other moniker, Adonis2, will you be revealing that you were once on the cover of GQ as well?

I did, however, once ask you the point of the questions on your little quiz, and like a filthy little liar, you said "Nothing. I just want it publicly known how many wives Joseph Smith had". Given your above comment about evidence suggesting "the latter", it has become clear that you're nothing more than a typical Anti-Mormon -- biased to the extreme, not to be trusted, ever.
Sorry, I never said that, it's not my style, though it would not surprise me the least if you remember it that way. Delusions are like that. If you think I really did say that, please post the link back to it.

Now as far as me being "not to be trusted, ever", just to use one example, it seems that you came to accept the fact that Mr. Smith did have numerous wives, including numerous ones who were already married to other men at the time, didn't you? You debated against that one for long time.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Let's see, how much have we spent destroying and then rebuilding (with no end in sight) a country that we never should have invaded in the first place? Close to a trillion dollars, and counting. Yes, I'll bet bin Laden praised Allah to no end (not to mention thanked his lucky stars) when the dimwit-in-chief diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He gets away, and we spend a fortune, with no end in sight, in Iraq driving up our deficit even higher and driving the dollar further down into the dumper.
Let's see, how much more anti-war drivel must America endure before liberals butt-out and leave national defense to the professionals?
That's the only pitiful response you could come up with? Well, what more could you say. Everything I said above is true.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
But I digress. You said "As far as Islam's crusade" which certainly implied you had a problem with the whole religion, and based on your comment above, seems you still do. I'm certainly not going to defend Islam itself, nor will I attack it. However, when you talk about them "converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims" you might want to read the Old Testament, bub. Seems to me the Children of Israel did a whole lot of subduing or eliminating of non-Jews, didn't they? Mostly eliminating.
I have zero problem with Muslims who advocate peace.
OK, so far so good.
I do, however, have a problem with Muslims who do nothing to prevent radical jihadists from shedding innocent blood.
Ah, so unless the peaceful Muslims do not prevent the radical Muslims from doing their thing, then they are part of the problem too? So, if the peaceful Mormons in Southern Utah did nothing to prevent (much less bring to justice afterward) the radicals from killing 120 men women and children at Mountain Meadows, they were part of the problem as well?

Yes, there are instances where God commanded his people to wipe out other civilizations. But no where in the Bible does God command his people to subjugate, subdue or eliminate non-Christians, unless directed by him via his prophets.
Amazing how there is always an "unless", "if" or something similar when it comes to violence in the name of religion, isn't it? No matter what the religion.

Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
And opportunity that they have had for years, and we still have to have 150,000 troops there (15,000 or so more than when the surge started) to maintain order. I'd say civilization has a ways to go. A long, long, long ways.
So what's your point Weepy? Are you saying that Iraq is not to have a civilized society? That they are not to be taught how to play nice with the rest of the civilized world?
I'd say Iraq having a civilized society is up to them. Now as far as "playing nice with the rest of the civilized world", perhaps you could explain why Bush and Co. do not have troops in Darfur doing the same thing? Oh, yea, they don't have oil.

Yes Hurts, Bush turned to Barrack Obama, with his considerable years of military expertise, before making the decision to increase our troops in Afghanistan.
Must have...Obama has been saying it for a long time...about a year, in fact.

Dang, decaf dissected like a frog in biology lab. Not a pretty sight.

hurtstruth wrote:
Ah, I see Decaf is back after spending a week trying to compose a witty reply to my last post. Well, half-witty, anyway.

At one point I had decided to leave you alone Hurts, but you're just too dumb and full of pride to know when to quit.

hurtstruth wrote:
Probably? I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof Saddam was involved with 9/11, being as since you did not submit one iota of evidence and all. Just can't get around that fact, can you?

Did I say I had proof Peacenik? Tell me where I said I had proof that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11. Given his previous connections with terrorist organizations, and given his awful track record at slaughtering innocent people, saying that he was "probably not involved with 9/11" is more than a fair estimate.


hurtstruth wrote:
Now, was he an imminent threat to our national security? No.
Decaf wrote:
Have you proven, once again, that you still have no idea what the hell you're talking about? Yes. I've already explained why he was an imminent threat in an earlier response to Wilco.
hurtstruth wrote:
Would this explanation be like the one above where you decided that Bush was not really President when 9/11 occurred, and therefore it did not happen on his watch? Perhaps you can restate it again, then, how he was an imminent threat to us. Did it involve imaginary WMD's? We'll call it "The Delusions of Decaf".

No, it would be like the response I gave to Wilco in a previous post, just like I said. Tell me Hurts, would you like me to help you with your english comprehension problem?

hurtstruth wrote:
Hell, he did not even have control of his own airspace, for crying out loud.
decaf wrote:
Hell, since when do homicidal wackjobs need control of their airspace to plot and commit mass murder?
hurtstruth wrote:
It usually helps to control ones airspace if one wants to drop bombs, launch missiles, etc. on or at ones neighbors.

Very good Hurts, having control of one's own airspace does help in mass murdering neighbor countries. That's why Al Qaeda decided to hijack airplanes and slam them in to our buildings, rather than take us on in a straight up fight. But of course, every liberal knows that Saddam Hussein was above this sort of cowardice, and would NEVER have tarnished himself with such evil deeds -- right, Pink Stain?

hurtstruth wrote:So who did Saddam mass murder (horrible as it was), besides his own people?

He did attack and kill innocent Kuwaitis, or have you silly liberals managed to erase that completely from your lready porous memory banks?

hurtstruth wrote:And speaking of that, if mass murder of ones own people is rationale to take out "homicidal wackjobs", what has Bush, Cheney, Rice and company been doing, military wise, while the Sudanese government has been waging a war of genocide against it's own citizens, killing hundreds of thousands (so far) in Darfur? It would seem, under your reasoning, we could and should have taken him out long ago. Just one of numerous examples.

It's been said that America can fight two, maybe three, wars at the same time. There's enough on our plate already. Perhaps if your hero, Master General Barracks, wins the presidency, he can use his military genius to find a better way to fight every oppressive government on this planet.

hurtstruth wrote:Or are the rules different if they have no oil?

Uh uh, Peacenik. I don't care how much you loons babble about oil dependency, the fact is, we're all in this together. Both sides of the political spectrum drive oil dependent automobiles. So until you hypocrites trash your cars and go 100% green, you have zero to stand on.

Besides, both John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, were on board with Bush in 2003.

hurtstruth wrote:
Could he have been a threat down the road sometime? Perhaps, but so could any number of leaders in other countries. Iran and North Korea, for example. Are you advocating preemptive action there as well???
Decaf wrote:
Perhaps"? What an idiot ... would've loved to see you try selling that hogwash to Kuwait, and the Kurds.
hurtstruth wrote:
Or the victims of genocide in Darfur that Bush is using our troops to stop? Wait, he isn't. Never mind.

Good idea; it was a stupid example anyways.

Just how far do you think an unfettered Saddam Hussein would have gone, Peacenik?
hurtstruth wrote:
Moot point. He was quite fettered.

A moot point for an anti-Bush simpleton. Hussein was fettered because he had to be stopped, and it sure as hell wasn't by a coward like you.

decaf wrote:
I'm advocating preemptive action against countries with a history of say, attacking a weaker nation and burning up chunks of their oil fields, for example. Get the picture?
hurtstruth wrote:
It's always easier to make up the rules of engagement after the fact, isn't it?

Kind of like saying hindsight is twenty/twenty. Very good Hurts, you've made another obvious observation

hurtstruth wrote:
And there is the reference to oil, too. Guess that answers my question from above about why we have taken no military action in Darfur, doesn't it?

Yes, there is a reference to oil, too. Good thing you hypocrites are planning to dump your automobiles and go 100% green.

hurtstruth wrote:
And you need to explain how if that was really our dimwit-in-chiefs reason, why he and his crew had to make up all that crap about WMD's and such, and present it to Congress and the American people as fact? Bush's rationale for war was not "Saddam did this in the past", it was "Saddam currently has these WMD's, we know he does, and he intends to use them."

Bush trusted the intelligence reports he was given. there's nothing more to say. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also believed these reports, but not once have you lambasted either of the two for being on board with Bush. Why do you suppose that is, Hypocrite?

Actually, I'm a veteran of the Air Force. I just thought "ArmyStrong" would be kind of a catchy moniker.
hurtstruth wrote:
Actually, I'd say the odds of you being the Easter Bunny are greater than you having been in any branch of the military.

Actually, I have all these experiences in the Air Force that you're saying I never had, so you get to do some explaining. Are you ready Peacenik? We'll start with an easy one:

Tell me everything you know about T.A.C.

hurtstruth wrote:
So, regarding your other moniker, Adonis2, will you be revealing that you were once on the cover of GQ as well?

Why do you ask Parasite? Have you decided to branch out from your neighborhood kids and play for the other team?

I did, however, once ask you the point of the questions on your little quiz, and like a filthy little liar, you said "Nothing. I just want it publicly known how many wives Joseph Smith had". Given your above comment about evidence suggesting "the latter", it has become clear that you're nothing more than a typical Anti-Mormon -- biased to the extreme, not to be trusted, ever.
hurtstruth wrote:
Sorry, I never said that, it's not my style, Sorry, you did say that, and it's exactly your style. It's what any anti-Mormon obsessive would say to deflect an accusation that he's an anti-Mormon obsessive.

Are you denying that you're an anti-Mormon obsessive? And if you are, then why do you keep asking the same question about Joseph Smith and plural marriage?

hurtstruth wrote:
Now as far as me being "not to be trusted, ever", just to use one example, it seems that you came to accept the fact that Mr. Smith did have numerous wives, including numerous ones who were already married to other men at the time, didn't you? You debated against that one for long time.

No, I came to admit that many historians agreed that Joseph Smith had multiple wives, but only the anti-Mormon historians would agree that he was a pervert and a fraud.


hurtstruth wrote:
But I digress. You said "As far as Islam's crusade" which certainly implied you had a problem with the whole religion, and based on your comment above, seems you still do. I'm certainly not going to defend Islam itself, nor will I attack it. However, when you talk about them "converting, subduing, or eliminating all non-Muslims" you might want to read the Old Testament, bub. Seems to me the Children of Israel did a whole lot of subduing or eliminating of non-Jews, didn't they? Mostly eliminating.
Decaf wrote:
I have zero problem with Muslims who advocate peace.
hurtstruth wrote:
OK, so far so good.
I do, however, have a problem with Muslims who do nothing to prevent radical jihadists from shedding innocent blood.
hurtstruth wrote:
Ah, so unless the peaceful Muslims do not prevent the radical Muslims from doing their thing, then they are part of the problem too? Very good Peacenik; if one does not become part of the solution, then one becomes an angry little coward, just like you.

hurtstruth wrote:
So, if the peaceful Mormons in Southern Utah did nothing to prevent (much less bring to justice afterward) the radicals from killing 120 men women and children at Mountain Meadows, they were part of the problem as well? Isolated incident, stupid example, and typical counter argument from a bitter anti-Mormon. You'll have to prove that Mormons destroy human beings at the same rate Islamics do, to make that a valid point.

Yes, there are instances where God commanded his people to wipe out other civilizations. But no where in the Bible does God command his people to subjugate, subdue or eliminate non-Christians, unless directed by him via his prophets.
hurtstruth wrote:
Amazing how there is always an "unless", "if" or something similar when it comes to violence in the name of religion, isn't it? No matter what the religion. Yes Hurts, I'm sure you believe all Old Testament Prophets were homicidal maniacs like Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden.


hurtstruth wrote:
And opportunity that they have had for years, and we still have to have 150,000 troops there (15,000 or so more than when the surge started) to maintain order. I'd say civilization has a ways to go. A long, long, long ways.
decaf wrote:
So what's your point Weepy? Are you saying that Iraq is not to have a civilized society? That they are not to be taught how to play nice with the rest of the civilized world?
hurtstruth wrote:
I'd say Iraq having a civilized society is up to them. Now as far as "playing nice with the rest of the civilized world", perhaps you could explain why Bush and Co. do not have troops in Darfur doing the same thing? Oh, yea, they don't have oil.

Some more garbled idiocy about oil, I see. But I'm sure once you hypocrites trash your oil dependent automoblies and go 100% green, you'll realize you have a leg to stand on.

Yes Hurts, Bush turned to Barrack Obama, with his considerable years of military expertise, before making the decision to increase our troops in Afghanistan.
hurtstruth wrote:
Must have...Obama has been saying it for a long time...about a year, in fact.

I see. So are you trying to tell me that we haven't had any troops in Afghanistan prior to Obama's revelation from a year ago?

Is there a word for self-dissection?

eric hussein miami wrote:
Is there a word for self-dissection?
Yes. Decaf. See next post.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Ah, I see Decaf is back after spending a week trying to compose a witty reply to my last post. Well, half-witty, anyway.
At one point I had decided to leave you alone Hurts, but you're just too dumb and full of pride to know when to quit.
Stupidity will do that to 'ya. You'd have been smarter to stay gone and save yourself the added humiliation below. No one will ever accuse you of being smart, though.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Probably? I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof Saddam was involved with 9/11, being as since you did not submit one iota of evidence and all. Just can't get around that fact, can you?
Did I say I had proof Peacenik? Tell me where I said I had proof that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11.
Proof? You've never had proof for anything you've ever said in this forum. But you did deny my statement that he was innocent of 9/11, on page 37 of this thread.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Innocent of being involved in 9/11? Yup. He was indeed innocent of that.
No, was Hussein a threat to U.S national security just before we attacked in 2003.
You answered "No" to my statement that Saddam was innocent of being involved in 9/11. A fact that even Bush AND Cheney later admitted. Will you admit it now??

Very good Hurts, having control of one's own airspace does help in mass murdering neighbor countries. That's why Al Qaeda decided to hijack airplanes and slam them in to our buildings, rather than take us on in a straight up fight.
Yup, they did that...on George Bush's watch. Speaking of watch, watch Bush sitting like a doofus after being told we are under attack....on his watch. Right after he got back from a month long vacation during which he been playing golf, being briefed that al Qaeda was up to something involving hijacked planes, and chopping wood at the ranch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZOeFceoilQ

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
And speaking of that, if mass murder of ones own people is rationale to take out "homicidal wackjobs", what has Bush, Cheney, Rice and company been doing, military wise, while the Sudanese government has been waging a war of genocide against it's own citizens, killing hundreds of thousands (so far) in Darfur? It would seem, under your reasoning, we could and should have taken him out long ago. Just one of numerous examples.
It's been said that America can fight two, maybe three, wars at the same time.
Really? Who's the dimwitted moron that said that? Besides you just now, of course. Please provide the link to anyone else stupid enough to say that.

There's enough on our plate already. Perhaps if your hero, Master General Barracks, wins the presidency, he can use his military genius to find a better way to fight every oppressive government on this planet/
In other words, Bush could care less, militarily, about the genocide going on in Darfur. Out of sight, out of mind.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf mumbled:
Just how far do you think an unfettered Saddam Hussein would have gone, Peacenik?
Moot point. He was quite fettered.
A moot point for an anti-Bush simpleton. Hussein was fettered because he had to be stopped, and it sure as hell wasn't by a coward like you.
No, he was fettered because he could not even fly planes in his own country, and could not go anywhere. And did I mention he had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD's?

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
And you need to explain how if that was really our dimwit-in-chiefs reason, why he and his crew had to make up all that crap about WMD's and such, and present it to Congress and the American people as fact? Bush's rationale for war was not "Saddam did this in the past", it was "Saddam currently has these WMD's, we know he does, and he intends to use them."
Bush trusted the intelligence reports he was given. there's nothing more to say.
Yes, there is something else to say, like Bush knew the reports were full of false and contradictory information and that he lied to the American people and Congress to make the case for a war with Iraq anyway. Period.

More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq...

..."Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.

"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

Bush Used Intel He Knew was False

Synopsis: Bush lied.

Actually, I have all these experiences in the Air Force that you're saying I never had, so you get to do some explaining. Are you ready Peacenik? We'll start with an easy one:

Tell me everything you know about T.A.C.
The Military is full of acronyms. Would that be short for Tinker Aerospace Complex or Tactical Air Command?

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf mumbled:
I did, however, once ask you the point of the questions on your little quiz, and like a filthy little liar, you said "Nothing. I just want it publicly known how many wives Joseph Smith had". Given your above comment about evidence suggesting "the latter", it has become clear that you're nothing more than a typical Anti-Mormon -- biased to the extreme, not to be trusted, ever.
Sorry, I never said that, it's not my style.
Sorry, you did say that, and it's exactly your style. It's what any anti-Mormon obsessive would say to deflect an accusation that he's an anti-Mormon obsessive.
Sorry, I never said that. Should be easy for you to prove, though, if I really did. Supply the link. Got link, liar?

Are you denying that you're an anti-Mormon obsessive?
Yup. There is no such thing as "anti-Mormon history". There is only real Mormon history. Same with that "faith promoting history" crap of BKP's. History is history, faith promoting or not. It is what it is. I'm sure the Germans do not find a lot of the history reagarding WWII to be "faith promoting", but you don't see them closing their eyes to it.

then why do you keep asking the same question about Joseph Smith and plural marriage?
Because it is part of real Mormon history, a part that evidently bothers you very, very much.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Now as far as me being "not to be trusted, ever", just to use one example, it seems that you came to accept the fact that Mr. Smith did have numerous wives, including numerous ones who were already married to other men at the time, didn't you? You debated against that one for long time.
No, I came to admit that many historians agreed that Joseph Smith had multiple wives, but only the anti-Mormon historians would agree that he was a pervert and a fraud.
Once again, there is no anti-Mormon history, only real Mormon history. On that last sentence, do you think the fact, and it is a fact, that there were 14 years olds, mother-daughters, sisters, and wives of other men in the mix of his wives troubling?

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Ah, so unless the peaceful Muslims do not prevent the radical Muslims from doing their thing, then they are part of the problem too?
Very good Peacenik; if one does not become part of the solution, then one becomes an angry little coward, just like you.
So, if the peaceful Mormons in Southern Utah did nothing to prevent (much less bring to justice afterward) the radicals from killing 120 men women and children at Mountain Meadows, they were part of the problem as well?
Isolated incident, stupid example, and typical counter argument from a bitter anti-Mormon. You'll have to prove that Mormons destroy human beings at the same rate Islamics do, to make that a valid point.
No, perfect example of you using a particular principle in one instance and not in another. Rate has nothing to do with it. Murder is murder, and particulary disgusting when done in the name of religion, no matter the religion and no matter the time period.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Amazing how there is always an "unless", "if" or something similar when it comes to violence in the name of religion, isn't it? No matter what the religion.
Yes Hurts, I'm sure you believe all Old Testament Prophets were homicidal maniacs like Saddam Hussein and bin-Laden.
Amazing how there is always an "unless", "if" or something similar when it comes to violence in the name of religion, isn't it? No matter what the religion. Wait, I already said that. Still true.

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
So, regarding your other moniker, Adonis2, will you be revealing that you were once on the cover of GQ as well?
Why do you ask Parasite?
Oh, I imagine a psychiatrist could say a few things about someone who gives uses a self given nickname of "Adonis."

Decaf mumbled:
TruthHurts wrote:
Decaf mumbled:
Yes Hurts, Bush turned to Barrack Obama, with his considerable years of military expertise, before making the decision to increase our troops in Afghanistan.
Must have...Obama has been saying it for a long time...about a year, in fact.
I see. So are you trying to tell me that we haven't had any troops in Afghanistan prior to Obama's revelation from a year ago?
Oh we have had them there...just not enough. Seems they are in Iraq...the country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD's.