Obama's whole raison d'etre for his campaign was his JUDGMENT. He argued that he alone - of all the candidates for the nomination - was opposed to the Iraq War from the start, and this proved he alone had the JUDGMENT to be president.
But now tha victory is almost completely assured, and al Qaeda is on the run - nearly completely destroyed, how good does THAT judgment seem!?
Piss poor.
Especially when one considers that he opposed the very change in strategy which turned things around: THE SURGE.
Obama said it wouldn't work.
VIDEO HERE AT HOT AIR.
Had Obama - (or Kerry, or nearly ANY Democrat, except for Lieberman!!!) - been the POTUS the last four years we WOULD HAVE LOST IRAQ AND HANDED AL QAEDA A HUGE VICTORY.
This is undeniable.
IF OBAMA IS ELECTED HE WOULD LIKELY DO THE SAME TYPE OF IDIOTIC, COWARDLY ENEMY-APPEASING THING AGAIN BECAUSE HE HAS BAD JUDGMENT.
OBAMA IS UNFIT TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
3 comments:
Where is the logic here? If Obama was POTUS, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, therefore we couldn't have lost Iraq. Instead, Al Qaeda and Osama would have been crushed at their true base, and not simply kicked back out of a random country into which we had invited them earlier.
dc - u never cease to amaze me.
if elected in 2000, obama would have probably left both the taliban and saddam in power.
(YES: MANY LIBS OPPOSED THE AFGHAN WAR AND SAID WE WOULD LOSE!)
if elected in 2004 - like kerry, obama would have retreated/surrendered..
obama opposed the surge. said it would not work.
that's bad judgment.
if elected now, he will appease. put more pressure on israel to appease the khalidis and the4 nasrallahs and the ahmdinejads.
only appeasing doves who fear/hate the bush's/roves/falwells more than the farrakhans/wrights/binladens could vote for obama.
wake up davey boy.
ummm, OK.
See you in November.
Post a Comment