In yesterday's WSJ, the paper makes the point that Obamania needs to go to Iraq.
Seems like a no brainer to me. But then again, I'm not a liberal, so I need to exclude common sense from this equation.
So the question in my mind is not when he'll go but why he won't?
First, the main reason Obamania won't go to Iraq and meet Petreaus is that it legitimizes the war effort; and liberal cannot tolerate that. Doesn't that sound familiar? Consider that conservatives have been bitching up a storm that Obamania has no problems meeting with the world's despots (Ahmdinedog, Castro, Chavez et al.) because it, in fact, legitimizes these idiots.
So Mr. Change can meet with despots but heaven forbid that he legitimizes our own armed forces?
Second, to actually go to Iraq may mean that Obamania needs to shift his paradigm as to the war effort. Heaven forbid that an arugula eating liberal actually keeps their mid open long enough to get some new information.
The fact is McCain set him up on this one. It was an easy target. Wait until he sets him up on capital gains taxes.
2 comments:
Me thinks Obamalamadingdong is like one of those clown punching bags. You nail it and it springs right back up. You don't see those anymore, must not be PC to deck a clown. If this clown is elected,May God help us, everything this country was founded on, and everything we have fought for will be down the drain.
I'm not tremendously pessimistic about an Obamania presidency.... We did survive Carter after all.
However, for some reason, I've recently developed this intense fear of clowns.
Post a Comment