Lindsay Graham needs to check his facts

[pushups2345]

if ur going to bash his tribute to our troops,at least pay attention to it

its about the surge&the defeat of the al qaeda network in iraq

when he talked about the iqis rejectin aq,hes talkin aboutthe anbar awakenin,in thearea where aq operated freely til the sunnis got tired ofthier brutality,&the surges success in bringin stability to baghdad.obl isnt the only terrorist.if aq was ableto op freely such an important geographical and demographic area as iq,it wouldve been even worse then afghan

[pushups2345]

i love how i made that fit :)

[lj4adotcomdan]

I don't bash a tribute to troops. The troops deserve better than what Lindsay Graham supports (i.e. the failed Bush policies in Iraq).

Remember, Al Queda did not operate freely in anbar province before we invaded.

[pushups2345]

and your argument is what? should we not destroy the al qaeda network in iraq? it's like me sitting here wining about how clinton didnt kill obl

what our troops deserve better then is someone who votes against thier re-enforcements, voted against thier funding, then denied thier success

[lj4adotcomdan]

My argument is that "staying the course" in the middle of a stream is bad if you are heading over a waterfall.

Read the 9/11 report to learn why clinton didn't kill OBL.

McCain voted against funding because of a timetable. Obama voted against funding because of lack of a time table. So each voted against funding.

Obama wants to push Iraq to defend itself and move back to Afghanistan so we can deal with Al Queda. That is a GOOD thing but the GOP seems to forget that.

[pushups2345]

when did i say"staying the course"?mccain was the one who changed it.he,Graham & joe were the ones who pushed the surge through congress

i did read the report.if you like it so much read 12.2 about"no sanctuaries"

that was after obama promised not to vote against it.ask biden about it

iraq couldnt defend itself if it had to rush untrained troops to fill ranks.t surge was the thing that bought the time for iraqi security forces reform needed.compare thier proformence before and after the surge

[pushups2345]

and the surge wasnt a "bush policy", it was mccain's

[m3sr6c83t0]

Maybe you like this website ralyg . com, i loved it go check it out. It has some stuff about the video in there pretty crazy shit indeed :|

[owens1280]

I actually meant recent years but yes,your correct,

However, Obama doesn't know anything about military affairs,he would delegate that responsibility down to his peers who would correct him, hell McCain woulddo the same thing but actually understand all the ends andouts.

Elitest, noI wouldnot want my president to be in a Elite Social class, or act in a elite manner, I preferthe term capable leader, Bush yes I would have a beer with, our presidents should connect with americans.

[owens1280]

Foolish at the time as you say,

that doesn't mean support the democrats because Bush got a little giddy lol

Democrats are elitest thinkers with great people skills,

they just lack a military backbone,

theres a reason why the majority of our presidents have been republican

[lj4adotcomdan]

No, but it doesn't make Lindsay Graham right either.

I love the term elitist. Don't you want your president to be "elite". It saddens me that Republicans don't want the best of the best as their President and they settle for Bush, the guy they would like to have a Beer with.

And im sorry, but the "lack a military backbone doesn't hold water when Obama clearly stated he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan in order to take out Osama bin Ladin.

[lj4adotcomdan]

And your facts are incorrect. Republicans have held neither a majority of time or a majority in number of Presidents.

Of the 220 years of presidents, Republicans have been in office 88 years.

Of the 42 presidents, 18 have been Republican. And of those 18, 3 had terms of less than 4 years.

[owens1280]

Foolish, maybe

Necessary, yes

Of course its a post convention bump, however a bump doesn't receed like a tide,itsmeant to shiftindependent voters one way and they don't magically set back because the convention is long over.

Politics determine that

Besides, some crazy redneck will attempt to kill Obama

Sad but true

[lj4adotcomdan]

Something that is necessary is not foolish. It was foolish and unnecessary to go into Iraq at the time because we should have been focusing our efforts on the enemy who attacked us.

[owens1280]

The polls should be a indication.

Yes, he did fund them and he praised osama's group after the attacks. Any state sponsored terrorist country should be dealt with and if they praise the death of Americans and endorse that sortof action, then by god I'd be happy to be sent off to deal with it as I will be in the next week.

I'll be uploading videos of general soldiers qustioned about the warand such, maybe this will get some attention.

[lj4adotcomdan]

What? An indication that McCain got a post convention bump? What a shocker.

Dealing with state sponsored terrorism is ok. But dealing with Iraq before we finished dealing with Al Queda... foolish.

[owens1280]

Hey man, saddam hussein funded the terroest group if they could cause harm directly to the west, preferably the U.S

As a personal friend who has just been appointed to The Air Force academy by him, I can say Graham is not incorrect in his faults.

If you want Obama, with muslim sympatheies as president

I hope you like the polls buddy

[lj4adotcomdan]

Polls don't concern me since we don't elect the President by the popular vote.

Yes, Saddam funded terrorist groups. He did not fund the terrorist group that attacked us. And instead of dealing with them, catching Osama, and punishing him for killing thousands of our civilians, Bush dropped the ball and went to Iraq... a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and Osama walks free today.

Muslim sympathies? Just because Obama correctly believes that not all muslims are terrorists?

[mcmvpgw]

i like this video better. I think you changed the camera angle or something.

[lj4adotcomdan]

Yeah I did.