Does he stay or does he go?

[LawDog]

What will also be funny is where the Dems who are now for him are the same ones who called him a liar, Betrayus, incompetant, and said his surge would never work. Hypocracy on parade....

[TxMusky]

What will also be funny is where the Dems who are now for him are the same ones who called him a liar, Betrayus, incompetant, and said his surge would never work. Hypocracy on parade....

Yep and it only makes Obama look weaker and weaker as a leader, or in his case a fake leader. It goes to show that neither he or his admin have any ideas on how to run anything, besides if I remember correctly, the concensus was that Biden had all of the foreign policy sense, if that is all he has then he has very little.

[Kevin]

That is spin, Tx. The President just sacked the guy running the war in Afghanistan, pushing McC out and putting in someone who will do as Obama wants and you think that this shows weakness? Good try at spin meistering. If McC had stayed, THAT would be showing true weakness - that Obama could not control his own general and was a weak Commander in Chief. Now that he has shown who is in charge, that also shows weakness? Can't have it both ways and the attempt to do so indicates pure partisan spindoctoring, nothing more.

[TxMusky]

The whole point being, Obama has no clue to what he is doing....about anything. How does putting a person you ridiculed and berated a couple of years earlier make you a better leader? IT either shows you were dishonest or inept before or it shows that you are now. Obama said in his campaign he was going to listen to the generals on the ground, evidently he was lying again, I guess its the soldiers who are at risk everyday that are affected the most. Having to listen to follow the orders of a naive, ignorant POTUS who has no clue as to what he is doing outside of a campaign rally!

[Kevin]

Listening to the generals doesn't mean allowing them to decide policy. My supervisor always says he will listen to my input. That doesn't mean he is going to agree with me or that I'll get my way. It means I will have a chance to speak my piece and have it be considered before coming to a final decision. I agree that Obama is not much of a leader, though.

[2ndthyme]

The whole point being, Obama has no clue to what he is doing....about anything. How does putting a person you ridiculed and berated a couple of years earlier make you a better leader? IT either shows you were dishonest or inept before or it shows that you are now. Obama said in his campaign he was going to listen to the generals on the ground, evidently he was lying again, I guess its the soldiers who are at risk everyday that are affected the most. Having to listen to follow the orders of a naive, ignorant POTUS who has no clue as to what he is doing outside of a campaign rally!

You are going to have to quote Obama ridiculing and berating General Petraeus because of your assertion that he was either dishonest or inept

[LawDog]

obama ridiculed Petraeus on the surge and said it would not work. I'm pretty sure it worked.

[2ndthyme]

Quote it

[TxMusky]

Quote it

Look it up, there is even a video I found of it, but if you cant grasp the situation unless you see it, then my linking to it will not make a believer out of you.

[Kevin]

I did your legwork for you, Tx. The video you can't produce when called upon to back up your assertions can be found at http://mediamatters.org/research/201006240065

That link also debunks the video. Fox and Friends EDITED the video in order to throw some raw meat to its rabid listeners that Obama criticized Petraeus. In the comments that Fox edited out, Obama makes it clear that his comments were about Bush, not Petraeus. Fox knows what its listeners want to hear and provides it for them. Doesn't have to be true, just has to be what is desired to be true.

[Compu Doc]

I did your legwork for you, Tx. The video you can't produce when called upon to back up your assertions can be found at http://mediamatters.org/research/201006240065

That link also debunks the video. Fox and Friends EDITED the video in order to throw some raw meat to its rabid listeners that Obama criticized Petraeus. In the comments that Fox edited out, Obama makes it clear that his comments were about Bush, not Petraeus. Fox knows what its listeners want to hear and provides it for them. Doesn't have to be true, just has to be what is desired to be true.

The part describing Fox news editing the video is probably why TX did not want to produce the link himself.

[TxMusky]

Nope. I figured out along time ago around here if a person does not believe something, there will always be a link that says the first link is BS if you look hard enough. Then it will not be a credible source or yada yada. Not worth my time.

[Kevin]

True, facts are stubborn and often inconvenient things. It is easier just to find stuff that you agree with and rationalize away that which does not.

But by the same token, you then give up the search for the truth of a given matter and rely solely on ideology to provide answers. That's OK as long as you are being upfront about your unwillingness to seek out fact and don't at the same time dun others when they do it. Any attempt at objectivity and fairness are also left behind because truth no longer matters, only ideology.

Isn't that what you accuse those who disagree with you about Obama of doing, though? That they refuse to see the truth of what he is or his policies and that they allow their ideology substitute for fact? Seems to me as if you just admitted doing exactly the same thing.

So what makes your position any different from theirs?

Not one single thing.

[2ndthyme]

Look it up, there is even a video I found of it, but if you cant grasp the situation unless you see it, then my linking to it will not make a believer out of you.

its not about what I can grasp... its about stating something and not caring enough whether its true to check your own facts. The veracity of all your posts are now questionable because of this habit.

[2ndthyme]

from Kevin's link above... this little additional bit

Malkin falsely claims Obama did not vote to condemn MoveOn ad
Malkin: Obama "sat on the fence" rather than condemn "Betray Us" ad. During the same June 24 segment on Fox & Friends, Malkin stated that in "one of the most despicable moments for the American left in modern politics," "you'll recall" that "Obama sat on the fence" for a Senate vote condemning an ad in which the group MoveOn.org referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us." Malkin concluded: "I guess we ought to be grateful for the evolution in American Democratic establishment thought on this."

In fact, Obama did vote for an amendment by Sen. Boxer that condemned the ad. Obama did vote for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces. The Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization," stating of the MoveOn.org ad: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States." The Boxer amendment also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, as well as attacks on Vietnam veteran Max Cleland.

facts matter very little when they don't fit for ideology, hey