Feisty you really ought to read some actual news.

Massive? Next month?

Oh My!

Oh your what, Scrankster?

President Obama is withdrawing the equivalent of a division of troops from Afghanistan. He is also leading a review of the U.S. position in the country and eying either additional troop withdrawals or possibly even a near-complete departure.

Issues involved include whether Afghanistan will revert to the state it was in when the country was invaded, disintegrate entirely, become a pawn for Iran or somehow cause more destabilization in Pakistan. Of course, there's also the possibility that the Taliban will agree to take part in the government in a more peaceful manner, or that somehow Afghanistan as it is will manage to retain significant central control and begin to forge its own way forward.

Ten years of war in that tortured country - and when the U.S. first invaded, there was the chance to complete the war relatively rapidly. But G.W. Bush, lusting for Iraq, bungled it (as he bungled virtually everything else during his incompetent Administration).

We shall see what happens. Huntsman is obviously staking out a contrarian position, and he knows the polls show a majority of the country is war-weary and has lost faith in the Afghan adventure.

As for Libya, for the most part the U.S. has laid rather low, behind the French, British and Italians. But as Sec. Gates observed recently, the allies' flagging capability bids fair to push more obligation on the U.S. The Republicans were at first for the aerial intervention, and now they are against it. Their flip-flop sandwich may gag them. And it is likely that Ghadaffi will be unable to hold on much longer. This particular matter is riskier for Huntsman, and he may regret his word.

Feisty-

Your suggestion that there will be a "massive" reduction in the troop levels in Afghanistan next month is simply factually inaccurate.

Therefore...

In your honor...I call bullsh!t.

I await your rebuttal.

Your suggestion that there will be a "massive" reduction in the troop levels in Afghanistan next month is simply factually inaccurate.

Based upon what? Your word? lol

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

Like everything the guy says, it has an expiration date.

And Feisty old gal, this one done expired already.

Quick expiration, right?

Nice cut and paste, what's the matter incapable of forming you own response?

Please clarify, Feisty-

The Washington Post says there are about 100,000 U.S. soldiers currently in Afghanistan.

What would constitute a "massive" withdrawal of U.S. forces?

Will a "massive" amount be withdrawn next month?

Really, Feisty?

Still sounds like bullsh!t to me.

Carrot Top in drag copied and pasted: This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

Searching.... Searching.... Searching.... Still Searching for the word massive.... nope... can't find it.

Leave it to a libbie to inject words that aren't there.

One thing Huntsman could run on in comparison to the rest of the GOP field is he foreign policy experience. It would have been more impressive to me if he suggested the following:

1) Withdraw from Afghanistan as completely and quickly as possible.

2) Any aid given to Pakistan must be used to defend their Afghan border, NOT against India.

3) What makes Libya different from other areas of conflict is Gaddafi. I suspect conservatives are afraid President Obama will benefit from another boost by getting the most notorious terrorist (Lockerbie) second only to bin Laden (9-11).

4) The US has frozen Libya/Gaddafi's assets, which should be used to pay for the military intervention in Libya.

No only is the US taking a multi-lateral approach in Libya, but the US along with NATO are close to achieving an end to the military intervention there and an end to Gaddafi's rule there. And it will be done for a fraction of the cost of invading Iraq.

The war-mongering neocon hawks are only against the intervention in Libya--or flip flop due to the inconsistency with their belief system--because it is a Democrat president leading the charge. And if President Obama had done nothing, the GOP/TPers would be crucifying him for that. Go away you silly Republicans, go away.

Please clarify, Feisty-

Sorry bag boy - no can do! I already 'clarified' it for you. If you don't care for it, it's your problem, not mine.

Your suggestion that there will be a "massive" reduction in the troop levels in Afghanistan next month is simply factually inaccurate.

In the meantime, be a 'dear and prove it's factually inaccurate!

You should know by know I have difficulty taking 'your' word on anything....

oh man Feisty what would u do with out politics?? You would have no life..nothing to do nothing to post after eating your pudding pop snack..you would be a drooling mess

"Nice cut and paste, what's the matter incapable of forming you own response?'

What the hell does it matter to you? You the 'boss Aplesauce' or someone that has been assigned to police the posts these days?

Look- If the cut-and-paste illustrates a point someone is trying tro make, who cares who's content it is originally? I mean- you ever cite some cases out of, say, the Norhtwest Reporter to establish your client's position? Should the judge say S'matter, counselor- couldn't form your own response?

See how petty and pointless your comment is? We get that you like to police the posts and be the arbiter of what constitutes good vs bad posts, but lighen up, lil fella.

DBO - the cut and paste didn't illustrate her point. That IS the point. She interjected the word "massive" in her defense of Obama and there doesn't seem to be a "massive" withdrawal brewing.

Now you will say that I'm being petty. Definitely not since she told me the other day to STFU. Who says it's only her opinion that really matters? So far, I've read nothing but partisan pap from the Carrot Top in drag.

Here's my cut and paste:

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
~Alexis de Tocqueville

9 years and counting.

Why thank you Drive By - you have once again made my point, particularly with the "Northwest Reporter" comment.

It is just such a shame that the logic of your own post escapes you so often.

I have cautioned you to read your own posts many times before, and most recently just yesterday. Perhaps you need to get someone to read them for you. Maybe its a reading compression issue?

You are the best-est sparkle monkey around this here opinion blog. Keep up the good work, and as always thank you for the giggles and grins.

"....the Carrot Top in drag"

Well, I'll certainly remove that part from my accusation about things that are 'petty'.

But the whole article is completely void due to the interjection of the word 'massive' then? OK.

Seems that the point of contention lies in what number does fiesty have in mind that translates into massive. just like obamacare touts off about "affordable" healthcare no one has ever given a number to what affordable is.

True Patriot said: The war-mongering neocon hawks are only against the intervention in Libya--or flip flop due to the inconsistency with their belief system--because it is a Democrat president leading the charge. And if President Obama had done nothing, the GOP/TPers would be crucifying him for that. Go away you silly Republicans, go away.

Guess it's a good thing I'm not a republican then. This way I won't have to comply with the demands of True Patriot.

I'm in utter awe of the amount of hypocracy contained in what True Patriot said though. Here we have a democrat that bombed the hell out of a soverign nation, on his own, and the liberals are all for it. Said president didn't obtain congressional approval, is figuring out a way to get around it and has been sent a letter of warning by the House. The libbies applaud his actions.

Let's reverse the scenerio. If Obama were a republican (God forbid), the libbies would be marching in the streets protesting, and the amount of hate speech on these boards would be endless. But in realityville, the libs are defending the Obama action as if he can do no wrong... somehow I think it's going to his head.

I suppose the hypocracy is invisible to liberals. Of course it is! The ideology of "We do no wrong" is completely blinded to their own words and actions.

DBO said:

"....the Carrot Top in drag"

Well, I'll certainly remove that part from my accusation about things that are 'petty'.

But the whole article is completely void due to the interjection of the word 'massive' then? OK.

Telling someone on these boards to STFU isn't petty? Tell me Dash, why are you defending the Carrot Top in drag (a name that fits because we have no proof that she's a she)? His/Her comment is void because he/she can't come up with anything that says "massive." The Obama speech was irrelevant to the discussion.

His/Her comment is void

Only in the minds of those who's IQ is reaching 60!

HAHAHA! Here's another one who thinks because they 'say' so it's automatically accurate!

Poor Brian - appears you've got a bad case of Feisty Fever - there's a lot of that going around these days! lol

Telling someone on these boards to STFU isn't petty

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Quick! Someone call BB an whambulance!

Nice to see you're still stinging from the smack down I laid on you earlier... ;o)

Feisty, dearest-

Last Wednesday, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that he would like to see at least 15,000 of the 100,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan withdrawn by the END OF THE YEAR.

That's what he would LIKE to see.

"Hasn't President Obama ordered a massive reduction of troops in Afghanistan starting next month?"

If he has...Carl Levin evidently hasn't heard about it.

"Massive" reduction?

You're the queen of hyperbole, Feisty one.

And...

It STILL sounds like bs.

Feisty is BS...has to use mapquest to find her brain since its in such a remote location in her head..I am willing to bet tho her big mouth can be seen from outer space

You know who does not have a case of "Feisty Fever?"

Feisty. See a couple of days ago she admonished someone with the following: "You've lost the argument when you can't comment on the substance and instead resort to her looks! LMAO.

So as you can plainly see Feisty does not even listen to Feisty.

Which raises the obvious question old gal - if you won't even listen to you, why on god's green earth should anyone else?

Can anyone really be this sad? Cut and paste away, but it just highlights the lack of there, there.

Keep on keeping on.

Carrot Top in drag said: Poor Brian - appears you've got a bad case of Feisty Fever - there's a lot of that going around these days! lol

What you describe sounds like a debilitating disease. Feisty Fever - An intense pain in the @$$ caused by a liberal speaking.

Sorry to inform you Carrot Top, but I've been innoculated from such annoyances. Since I've been treated, the main reaction I garner from Feisty Fever is a bellyache from laughing so hard.

Carrot Top in drag thinks I've been slapped down. Yeah? Then why am I still around and not STFUing? Bold words from an irrelevent shemale. Keep on trying Carrot Top. You can make me laugh any day of the week. I certainly don't mind a bit. Silly libs have that effect on me.

BTW, have you found where Obama said "massive" yet? Or will you admit that YOU interjected that word by mistake?

We need the counselor's opinion, or at the very least, his admonishon of someone saying "(a name that fits because we have no proof that she's a she".

I remember getting dinged, repeatedly, for saying I had no proof someone wasn't either gay, or a woman. Well, loudmouth- how about it? Is Brianb in good stead, here?

DBO - since you feel this is a court of law, show me the proof that Carrot Top in drag is a female. Proof I said... not conjecture. The defense rests.

Excellent posts Feisty and drive-by . . . just like with the execution of Osama bin Laden . . . the peanut gallery is rushing in to try and take credit for President Obama's accomplishment.

So sad. . . reduced to quibbling about the word "massive" when before President Obama made the decision to intensify the offensive and withdraw in 18 months, these same folks were telling us we could never set a date for withdrawal . . . that would be "cutting and running".

The President was right . . . and the punditocracy and "the right"was wrong.

Simple as that.

And if President Obama had done nothing, the GOP/TPers would be crucifying him for that.

Can anyone honestly deny that the president would not have been cast as "weak" if he did nothing? How about the surge in Afghanistan and giving military leaders a chance to turn things around there? Come on, the GOP/TP are befuddled on how to be the Party of No when President Obama embraces their own positions, regardless of what it has been.

The bottom line is, Dems have never been "weak" on national security (any more than they've been the party of tax and spend), and it was on President Obama's watch that we got bin Laden. And when the president is received so well abroad, the envious republicans call him an apologist. What ever. Just admit it, he's far better at foreign policy than any Republican POTUS in recent memory, and will be better than Huntsman or any other candidate in the GOP field.

What the facts are is that Obama is wiping out terrorists all over the world and putting an end to the war on terrorism that has been dragging on for ten years now. As a result the GOP is losing a lot of their terrorist dictator buddies that they have been helping maintain power in their countries. This is bad for profits as they will now need to forge relationships with new free societies that will not be party to their control and destroy way of doing business. Supply side economics will have to yield to supply and demand economics once again lowering the insane profits once enjoyed by the monopolies put in place by American corporations. Obama is doing too good of a job eradicating the terrorists and is being attacked to ensure the survival of the old, rich, white guy party.

working - Obama is wiping out terrorist... and putting an end to the war on terrorism.?. get educated, their have always been terrorists.

Your observation would be like saying as soon as you pay off this months bills you will be debt free. At least until next month.

Ursula - Yemen, Sudan you tell me how are you feeling about those countries. All good for you.

Say Ursula, I don't know if you have heard but a bunch of protesters were murdered in Syria. How about it - Bombs away?

Such the war hawk these days. How surprising.

What say you, Spanky, are you turning into a little dove?

More civilians are being killed and worse atrocities are being committed in other countries than Libya on its worst day. Shall we invade them all?

Shall we invade them all?

Does it have to be an all or nothing proposition with you? No, I'm not interested in sending our troops anywhere and everywhere, but I think it's reasonable to authorize a 'no fly zone' to prevent a massacre of civilians where it's possible to be effective. No boots on the ground.

On the other hand, we should've been out of Iraq eight years ago - isn't that when GW Bush declared, "Mission Accomplished?" But in truth, it was an ineffective search for WMD that didn't exist so that he could go after "the guy who tried to kill my dad."

The difference in these situations is this: On Libya, we were of the same mind on the situation as both our allies and the Arab League in the middle east. The same is not true with respect to Syria, Sudan and Yemen. The Arab League will NOT condone or support intervention.

No ursula just looking at the cost.

And you know what - it costs a lot to let Nato play war games. I bet we could give some of that money [and remember $.40 of every dollar is borrowed] to Anna Molly and she could "do good."

So why so partial to Libya Ursula?

Me, I'd love if if we pulled out today from all the wars.

And speaking of pulling out, anyone catch Ginger Lee's presser? Weiner told her to lie and cover up, but the PORNSTAR, being of higher moral values, told him no.

That is fantastic. Oh, and did I mention she is smoking hot?

Senator Lindsey Graham thinks we should invade ALL of the countries that are engaged in conflict:

Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan. Iran, etc.

Republicans love war!

Does it have to be an all or nothing proposition with you?

-------------------------------------------------

Actually, yeah. It is, afterall, the Dept. of Defense, not the Dept. of International Police, not the Dept. of Get Them First Before They Think About Possibly Getting Us. And as I said, if you want to use the military for humanitarian purposes, there are worse countries than Libya that we ignore on a daily basis.

Further to my post #1.9 above, another difference between Libya and other areas (Sudan, Yemen, etc.) is whether the people of a country invite us in. The Libyans begged us to help.

Also, in regard to oil-rich countries, likewise if Iraq asks us to keep troops there, then let's trade oil for troops. There's no reason other countries can't help pay for the cost of defense or policing.

Oh, so the Iranians were not begging for our help? THe Syrians and the Yemenis don't want our help?

What about Gorge Clooney? In addition to being a total hunk and all, hasn't he, Bono and many others, including many, many Sudanese leaders also begged for our help?

Naa, you are right TP, so far it has only been "the Libyans." Which Libyans TP? Well I guess we are just lucky, cause had any of those other countries asked, we'd be right over bombs ablazin', right TP?

True - just a minor detail, were the libyans appealing for help really representative of the libyan government as a whole? Regardless it does appear that we have gone way beyond the original UN mandate.

Regardless of who asked for what, the American military should never be subject to the request of other entities. Why is this even a partisan issue for cryin' out loud? Is ideology that important to you? Where the Hell are all the folks I stood beside of on the Mall back in 2006?

Well, this is interesting. Apparently Obama is telling Congress that, in Libya, we're not at war . . .

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=2

Glad that's been cleared up. Peace through War, and all that . . .

Glad that's been cleared up. Peace through War, and all that .

Oh, wait, it's not a War. It's peace through unauthorized limited hostilities that are in no way amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

Source (again): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=2

Can't fight a war, ehh, limited hostility, without a lawyer these days.

Now I am confused. Doesn't happen often, but when it comes to liberals and their multi-sided mouths, every once and a while, what they say dosen't make any sense at all.

Dropping bombs, using military aircraft against an enemy, spending billions of dollars of military resouces and running tactical situations against a soverign nation isn't war? Someone please explain this to me.

Obama must think we are all mindless drones. At least this is the goal he's trying to reach.

So the President can drag us into a conflict without Congressional approval if, as the White House claims, " that the activities of United States military forces do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline."

So much for Congress having the power to declare war.

We now need to define what full blown hostilities means. Just a few missiles, count the number of bullets or aircraft used, 25 men or less...ridiculous.

The President does not have that power and to say he does disregards the safeguards in the Constitution.

Indy Lib wrote: Regardless of who asked for what, the American military should never be subject to the request of other entities.

Agreed. My point is we were not welcomed as liberators in Iraq. A desire for freedom, democracy, and gratitude for assistance is preferred IMO.

The definitions of war started with the Dems as the Iraq war progressed and was poorly managed. Now finally the Republicans are getting on board, but the motive and timing is questionable.

There is a difference between the US Government declaring a No FLY Zone and NATO declaring a No fly zone. Again This conflict in Lybia is led by NATO. The forces that are doing these bombing missions even though they might be american planes and bombs they are under NATO command, meaning that the president has no direct control over them in this case, So with that understanding he has not declared, invaded, or overthrowing a soverign government all by himself.

Last i checked NATO operations do not fall under the Jurisdictions of The United States Congress. Just about every congressman understands this, however people fail to realize everything that is being done now is done simply for political show.

coo-coo...

the doves are coming out of the closet!

Ursula-279622..

How do those wars look to you from your nice safe home in the states. Be as patriotic as your post, volunteer, join the army.

Tell me after your first firefight how the doves are doing.

Coo-coo.

Ursula-279622

coo-coo...

the doves are coming out of the closet!

AND- they have WEINERS on their minds...er, Bird Brains!

So none of you critics are willing to allow for changes in political or economic situations? Or changes in the way a conflict plays out? Or changes in the reaction of opposing forces? We should commit to a course of action at the beginning and then proceed unwaveringly regardless of other factors?

Really?!

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback when you don't have to actually carry the ball...

Definitely was a change in the party affiliation of the president. But do educate us on any changes you see that have occurred in the way any of the conflicts have played out.

Where did Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan go?

Or Harry Reid - you remember - we lost Iraq in '06, right fielden?

But yeah that last sentence is right on. You think that will come up a time or two in the next election?

You know like how Obama was all against raising the debt ceiling in '06. Now fielden, refresh my recollection. What ball was Obama carrying back then?

Or how about Gitmo - what ball was O carrying in '08 when he was all fired up to close that MOFO down? The wars? Shall I go on, or would you like to play?

Libbies say the silliest things.

Fieldon - the last effective foriegn policy that I can recall was when carter invited egypt and israel to the US to work out a peace agreement. Isn't it time for our government to have one?

Jody,

The democrats also voted to extend the authority to carry on both wars and the wars continue to get funded on a bipartisan basis. Lets get the hell out of both places and stop trying to blame each party about who started it and why. People are dying and are being seriously injured and maimed every day. Stop the bickering and get out as fast as possible. It is not in our strategic interest. Huntsman is right.

Groucho - good post, and I also agree with Huntsman. Hopefully he won't get killed in the Republican primary because of these types of views...

Democrats approved a limited mission such as training Iraqi forces, guarding Iraq's borders and targeting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq. The limited approach in Libya is in line with Democrat views.

It is the GOP that lied us into Iraq, and it is the GOP that is flip-flopping, and continues to be clueless about national security.

TruePatriot-445959..

Good to know. I was under the impression the democrats voted to send troops to Iraq about ten years ago, then some more, and more and there was the surge.. They also passed legislation to pay for it also.

So for 10 years we were training Iraqi forces? Over 4,500 Americans died. Training must be a very perilous assignment.

Training must also be mighty expensive.

But you know who would know - 3Wolves. He's there now. Lets be sure to ask him just what he's up to tomorrow, OK TruePatriot?

That should clear this right up, lickety split.

I was referring to the original approval. Once sucked in, now you have American lives on the line. I won't waste further BTUs. Thanks for playing..

No matter the number of troops Obama withdraws next month, they'll be against it saying it is too small.

Pius Emeka Nebo, I think you're wrong on that point, because it could go either way: GOP to Obama, "You make the first move, then we'll let you know if it's too much or too little."

Yeah Ursula you sure wouldn't want those bastard GOPers to defer to the Commander in Chief on troop withdrawal. Great point.

Spanky, is sarcasm tough for you? It doesn't matter what position the president takes - the GOP will take the opposite...as they have for the past 2-1/2 years.

Perhaps it's time to start reporting Spanky's proliferate posts that adds no value as "adding no value." Spanky, do you have a life--at all? You and others attack Feisty as having too much time on her hands. At least she provides substance. Let's see a lengthy, factual, interesting, meaningful, enlightening post that actually makes sense for a change. I tire of having to scroll through your chicken crap.

Well hey there True P - it's your call. Read the chicken crap, or scroll through, it's you computer and only you are the boss of you, right? OF course.

Like your post above. You got called out, but rather than admit to your obvious error you tried to play it off: not what you were referring to and all.

Whatever you need to say to get yourself through. And as a matter of fact I do have a life. Pretty good one at that. In fact one of the better parts is owning my own business, and having several very capable and qualified people working for me. Really frees me up sometimes. How about you? Good life? Lots of free time?

So you can read, or not read my posts. But like your attempt to lay it off on your reference point above, when you claim that Feisty "provides substance" you have again lost your way.

But I presume you know that. Also perhaps you should get more sleep. might give you the energy to slog through. :)

Perhaps it's time to start reporting Spanky's proliferate posts that adds no value as "adding no value."

Poor little Spanky - this is HIS life!

He has no other place to go and play Fantasy Island!

Here's a word of advice - put him on ignore author!

I did months ago - makes FR a much more enjoyable experience then having to listen to am acne prone, Cheeto's addicted kid bragging about what HE wished he had while living with his mommy in the double wide wearing his NASCAR jammies!

Trust me! ;o)

Well it is not exactly, but close enough to a post about my looks.

Thanks Feisty, and yes I know you care.

Oh, and that I'm on ignore. Sure I am. :)

Agreed Spanky..you are not on ignore..Feisty's ego would have her read all the flattering posts about her..and I am willing to bet she too lives with mommy in a double wide..thats how she knows so much about it

President Obama was very clear when there were calls to intervene in Libya, to support the rebels, that our intervention would be limited, and he has kept his promise.

All these guys are vultures. they want to take glory for what they've been against as individuals and as party. e.g, Romney trying to credit for the success of the auto industry.

Yep, the GOP is on the wrong side of a success story.

Ursula - thinking about sending in seal team 6 to take out quaddafi?

thinking about sending in seal team 6 to take out quaddafi?

american-2051576 - as far as I recall, quaddafi didn't murder 3000 Americans on 9/11, so no. Do you believe it was wrong to kill bin Laden?

Is the election next week or something?

Hey Larry - what were the Obama v. Economy numbers?

Focus, and remember the wisdom of the godking Clinton. Economy is here, too bad Obama is stupid.

Or some such.

spanky you are the stupir BUCK, Ooopss I meant F---

You spelled 'stupor' wrong, but we do, over all, agree.

...what about the polls of the GOP vs. the Economy?

Based on the NH debate substance, there's not even enough room in cyber space to list all of the great ways they are going to stimulate the economy.

Life if not just what you believe you stand against...but also what you stand for. If the best you've got is Congressman Paul not wanting to give a 5 year old care in the ER because "...the Hospitals have been bankrupted..." you go ahead and run with that.

Allen - if the government continues to spend more than revenues bring in in non recessionary times, it will be more than just a 5 year old boy that would be out of luck in the ER. The question was a lame one, much along the line of asking someone to answer yes or no to the following question..."Have you stopped beating your significant other yet?" Yes or No?

What people forget is that we are part of NATO, and for Italy, France and Germany, Libya is a national security concern. As their allies, we should be committed to aiding them. Does Gov. Huntsman think we should get out of NATO? (It's quite a topic of interest these days). Should we not intervene if Libya does something in Israel? Why don't journalists ask important follow-up questions.....any candidate (or, in Pawlenty's words, any "doofus") can come up with a sound bite statement on a particular position or issue, but what is more interesting is to find out how that sqaures with other bits of information. The current Republican party thinks that Israel can do no wrong, should never be reprimanded and should always be defended....so what if the Libyans do something to Israel. Does Gov. Huntsman THEN believe the price is right?

Kate - it wouldn't have been the first time that NATO countries had differences of opinion on a course of action.

Pablo - what about other 'oppressed' countries?

So, American, why can't we have a difference of opinion with Israel? Journalists should do their homework and try to put things in context: Huntsman says we can't afford to be in Libya (as part of NATO), but are there times when he would pay that same price? To defend Israel? (why?) To support Iranian opposition? (why?) Or is he making a blanket-- "we will only go in if we can afford it" statement (so much for American "exceptionalism") or is he an isolationist who prefers diplomacy?

FEISTY REDHEAD, girl I like the way you roll.

Thanks Robert!

As you know they want 'their' country BACK, I'm just doing what I can to make sure this country moves FORWARD!

Good to know people are reading & paying attention even though they can't comment much!

Looking forward to seeing you around in the future! There's too much at stake this time around! ;o)

maybe if u ask nicely she will share her pudding pops with u

If she asks nice, would U share one of your 'pud pops' with HER?

Feisty Redhead Roselle

awwwww. very easy to recognize good fighters. pops corn please.

pops corn please.

Come in right up - hot & salty! ;o)

@ Driveby.....she would never ask nicely..so NO SOUP FOR HER..or pudding pops

Huntsman will seem moderate, but really it's just the enigma that is the Mormon church. The idea of foreign policy being based on the Last Days is disconcerting. It's a weird mixed bag--like Utah being liberal toward illegal immigration, it's somewhat of a Book of Mormon thing. Be wary of these guys, Romney and Huntsman.

As for Chris Christie, he is as big as a Rhino if that counts for anything.

The Libyans who asked for our help are now officially recognized as the government of Libya by most of the world. You may not have a high opinion of our military, but the precision of bombing of Gadaffi positions is pretty impressive, and sure beats sitting on the side watching the alternative of a massacre.

I'm anti-war, but I support the punishment of terrorists, and Gaddafi is a terrorist. So many conservatives were immediately against intervention in Libya, the same %$#&@! conservatives who called me unpatriotic because I was against the invasion of Iraq. THAT is what is mind boggling.

True Patriot,

I'm pretty sure that about a dozen nations have "officially" recognized the rebel forces as the legitimate government of the Libyan people. That's an awfully low number for "most of the world" as indicated above. In addition, we (the good old U.S. of A.) aren't one of the dozen or so nations that recognized them, although we are providing some support.

Contrary to your statement, I have a very high opinion of our military, as several family members have previously served, what I don't have a high opinion of, is the British, French, and Italian Air Forces, which are the units bombing Tripoli. My point in all of that prior posting was not that we are wrong to be bombing Libya, but that we are wrong to present that position as anything other than regime change (not a kinetic action), which the U.N. Resolution specifically denied as justification for intervention. Again, it's a spinning game from D.C., it doesn't matter who's in power, once they get there, it's self-aggrandizement, as opposed to public interest.

I'm a conservative, and you are entirely within your rights to have opposed the Iraqi invasion, that's one of the great things about this country, we're each entitled to our own opinions. In my opinion, that doesn't make you unpatriotic, and those that abused you for your opinion, were only showing their ignorance. However, whether you like it or not, then President Bush went to the U.S. Congress, and got approval for the invasion of Iraq, President Obama has not, as of yet, asked for authorization of the use of U.S. forces, and it would appear, has no intention of doing so, short of a massive revolt by the Congress.

It's ok big guy, I didn't expect you to get it. But do keep going on about authorities and citation of same. Really highlights your, um, vast knowledge on the subjects.

Oh, and see how I put this right under you comment. Neat trick, right?

Those $400 haircuts really do make a man look great!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-edwards-mugshot-idUSTRE75E59M20110615

Worth every penny.

LOL.

The problem is we've had the Bush Doctrine, which has been disastrous. We need a new foreign policy, especially in view of the "Arab Spring." It's fair to ask if there will be an Obama Doctrine, and what should that be?

Many posts in this thread is a debate about when, if ever, the US should intervene. Whether people like it or not, economics is a variable. But each situation is a case by case basis, with different histories, current conditions, etc. Which countries are more likely to end up as a US ally? That depends on the movements, who leads each and to what end. It depends on likely success.

So far Egypt and Libya have been good bets. These countries may not become democracies as we know it, but have potential to be moderate and pro-US. Other than that is humanitarian policy, and anti-terrorism policy. Libya meets both of these criteria as well. Success is close in Libya, but not in Afghanistan. These are reasons why, along with NATO and no boots on the ground, I have supported President Obama on Libya.

Good call on the source of my frustration TP, and your thoughts are well stated. I just never understood people's obsession with partisan politics. Fair or not, it seems to me that the very folks who back Obama in Libya are the same ones that would be all over Bush if he did the same. Sometimes I just wanna rip my hair out. Oh well, that's just the nature of politics. Its lonely on the far left these days.