Obama's candidacy is over. He's already stated that he has no intention of stopping the war, so he has disqualified himself. That's his prerogative; no one put a gun to his head. His op-ed in Monday's New York Times just removes any lingering doubt about the matter. What Obama proposes is moving the central theater of operation from Iraq to Afghanistan. Big deal. Why is it more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan than in Iraq?

It's not; which is why Obama must be defeated and the equivocating Democratic Party must be jettisoned altogether. The Democrats are a party of blood just like the Republicans, they're just more discreet about it. That's why people who are serious about ending the war have to support candidates outside the two-party charade. The Democrat/Republican duopoly will not deliver the goods; it's as simple as that.

Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example of what the Democrats are all about. Just look at the way she brushed aside the people who got her elected. They mean nothing to her. In a matter of months, the "San Francisco liberal" has achieved what former-Speaker of the House Hastert could only dream of; she's driven the Congress' public approval ratings into single digits for the first time in history making her the worst speaker of all time. She rubber-stamped the FISA bill, concealed what she knew about the CIA's global torture programs, and vowed to stop any public effort to hold the administration accountable for its war crimes. (No impeachment) She has betrayed her most ardent supporters and singlehandedly transformed an already-emasculated congress into a purely ceremonial body incapable of doing the people's work.

Obama is not an antiwar candidate, that is merely a fiction maintained by his public relations team. In fact, he wants to beef up the military with 65,000 additional ground forces and 27,000 more marines. He's also stated that he will add "two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan" and encourage NATO to make "greater contributions-with fewer restrictions". In his op-ed he boasted, "As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

He also added this ominous warning:

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Obama supporters should take their candidate at his word. What he is proposing is a dramatic escalation and expansion of the war into another sovereign country.

Obama is suggesting what should have been done in 2001 and 2002. He will keep arguing that the Iraq invasion drained time, energy, assets, money, and interest from Afghanistan.

He's right. I will still vote McCain because I believe in a split government. I no more trust farleft libs than I do pretendconservative neo-cons.

The Keeper wrote:
Obama's candidacy is over. He's already stated that he has no intention of stopping the war, so he has disqualified himself. That's his prerogative; no one put a gun to his head. His op-ed in Monday's New York Times just removes any lingering doubt about the matter. What Obama proposes is moving the central theater of operation from Iraq to Afghanistan. Big deal. Why is it more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan than in Iraq?

It's not; which is why Obama must be defeated and the equivocating Democratic Party must be jettisoned altogether. The Democrats are a party of blood just like the Republicans, they're just more discreet about it. That's why people who are serious about ending the war have to support candidates outside the two-party charade. The Democrat/Republican duopoly will not deliver the goods; it's as simple as that.

Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example of what the Democrats are all about. Just look at the way she brushed aside the people who got her elected. They mean nothing to her. In a matter of months, the "San Francisco liberal" has achieved what former-Speaker of the House Hastert could only dream of; she's driven the Congress' public approval ratings into single digits for the first time in history making her the worst speaker of all time. She rubber-stamped the FISA bill, concealed what she knew about the CIA's global torture programs, and vowed to stop any public effort to hold the administration accountable for its war crimes. (No impeachment) She has betrayed her most ardent supporters and singlehandedly transformed an already-emasculated congress into a purely ceremonial body incapable of doing the people's work.

Obama is not an antiwar candidate, that is merely a fiction maintained by his public relations team. In fact, he wants to beef up the military with 65,000 additional ground forces and 27,000 more marines. He's also stated that he will add "two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan" and encourage NATO to make "greater contributions-with fewer restrictions". In his op-ed he boasted, "As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win."

He also added this ominous warning:

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Obama supporters should take their candidate at his word. What he is proposing is a dramatic escalation and expansion of the war into another sovereign country.
Bush has finally come over to the Democrat time schedule of pulling out of Iraq. About time he started listening to his successor Obama for a change! Of course what does the liar and chief have to lose, he will be out of office before it begins.

Republicans will be in the minority all over the US for at least 12 years due to his failed leadership.

Wren wrote:
Obama is suggesting what should have been done in 2001 and 2002. He will keep arguing that the Iraq invasion drained time, energy, assets, money, and interest from Afghanistan.

He's right. I will still vote McCain because I believe in a split government. I no more trust farleft libs than I do pretendconservative neo-cons.

Interesting! I suppose that meant you voted Democrat in 2000 and 2004 because you "believe in a split govt)? Or are you just a party line fellow through and through.

As a Republican (compared to those RINOs the neo-cons), I believe you are right. We had a chance to put this country on a good course, and the President and his henchmen because of 9-11 took us on a wild-goose chase that has cost us trillions, friends throughout the world, and tens of thousands of American soliders killed, wounded and injured.

I wish we could try Bush for his crimes.

Everybody Loves Raymond wrote:
This Obama tour with the troops, with shooting baskets, is all carefully staged BS. Look at the gym, filled with minority affirmative action "soldiers" cheering like madmen at the prospect of the Messiah Magic Obama as their leader. It made me sick.
Convict. Remember the "mission accomplished" photo op. Now that was sickening and only the start of the slaughter. Now "rack in".