Lindsay Graham needs to check his facts

The fact is that Al Queda has regained strength to pre-9/11 levels. But Lindsay Graham continues to be an apologist to failed Bush policies. (The Washington Post article I refer to in the video is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• commentary
• analysis
• Lindsay
• Graham
• John
• McCain
• Iraq
• Al
• Queda

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[pushups2345]

i love how i made that fit :)

[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.