The Associated Press: Obama expected to meet with commanders of Iraq war
We all know that Bush is one of the worst Presidents in US history and that the Iraq war has been lost for years now, as was correctly called out by Harry Reid, April 19 2007:
Buried in this article there is some false information that must have been planted by the Bush admin:
It is a good thing this is buried deep in the article. Some radical right wingers might think that a president that went against the MSM, Democrats and even brilliant first term foreign policy expert Senators like BO and went ahead with a surge of troops that saved Iraq and America from a military and political failure that would have cost Iraq millions of lives impacted us worse than allowing ourselves to be defeated in Vietnam might be a cause for some level of at least national "relief" if not celebration. They would of course be WRONG, for the MSM and Democrats around the country the only desirable outcome for Iraq is the worst defeat for the US possible.
Clearly though, since BO said that the surge would not work and in fact would make things worse, then it must be so!! BO is brilliant, Bush is an idiot. If the MSM has made ANYTHING clear over the past year or so, it is this fact, so it really must be true, since we have an unbiased and brilliant MSM!! To believe otherwise would cast the whole world view of something like 70% of the American population and a huge portion of the world into the land of fantasy.
This tidbit that I KNOW that we can ignore was at the VERY end of the article:
Certainly the reason that violence is on the rise in Afghanistan CAN'T because the "front line on terror" had moved to Iraq after our attack in Afghanistan, and now, since the coalition forces have the clear upper hand there, the vermin are fleeing back to Afghanistan.
NO! That CAN'T be true!!! It would simply make too many people wrong and the WRONG people right! No matter what the cost, that is a view that the MSM and the left can NEVER accept!
We all know that Bush is one of the worst Presidents in US history and that the Iraq war has been lost for years now, as was correctly called out by Harry Reid, April 19 2007:
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.We know the surge in fact did not work, because that was predicted by the greatest most intelligent politician in the history of the planet, a designation that no doubt sells his messianic qualities short to many of his ardent followers in the media. His worshipfulness BO declared on Jan 10 2007 that:
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."We know that Bush, McCain, Lieberman and all Americans who believe that defeating terrorists in Iraq are completely wrong and that Reid, the MSM, and of course the all-knowing BO are NEVER wrong!
Buried in this article there is some false information that must have been planted by the Bush admin:
The trip will be Obama's second to Iraq, but conditions are quite different from when he visited in January 2006. Obama's first tour was treated as a footnote, while the country was caught in a growing Sunni insurgency and was moving toward a flood of sectarian violence. But the bloodshed has declined significantly since Bush sent thousands more troops last year to help quell the rising violence.
It is a good thing this is buried deep in the article. Some radical right wingers might think that a president that went against the MSM, Democrats and even brilliant first term foreign policy expert Senators like BO and went ahead with a surge of troops that saved Iraq and America from a military and political failure that would have cost Iraq millions of lives impacted us worse than allowing ourselves to be defeated in Vietnam might be a cause for some level of at least national "relief" if not celebration. They would of course be WRONG, for the MSM and Democrats around the country the only desirable outcome for Iraq is the worst defeat for the US possible.
Clearly though, since BO said that the surge would not work and in fact would make things worse, then it must be so!! BO is brilliant, Bush is an idiot. If the MSM has made ANYTHING clear over the past year or so, it is this fact, so it really must be true, since we have an unbiased and brilliant MSM!! To believe otherwise would cast the whole world view of something like 70% of the American population and a huge portion of the world into the land of fantasy.
This tidbit that I KNOW that we can ignore was at the VERY end of the article:
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told the AP on Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults there, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan, where American casualties are running higher than in Iraq.We know that Gen Petraeus was called a liar by Hillary (she was nice enough to say one would have to "suspend disbelief" to say the surge was working last September), and BO failed to react to the "General Betray Us" Ad from last September until a few weeks ago as he is now making a few "reasonable political moves" to appeal to radical right voters that don't approve of claiming that our military commanders are lying to us.
Certainly the reason that violence is on the rise in Afghanistan CAN'T because the "front line on terror" had moved to Iraq after our attack in Afghanistan, and now, since the coalition forces have the clear upper hand there, the vermin are fleeing back to Afghanistan.
NO! That CAN'T be true!!! It would simply make too many people wrong and the WRONG people right! No matter what the cost, that is a view that the MSM and the left can NEVER accept!
No comments:
Post a Comment