Hey, Obama, how about you admit Jim Cauley is a loser freak.
Editorial content?
What editorial content?
The MSM is a joke to more and more people every day.
The Democrats are digging a hole that is now reaching below rock bottom. Barak Obama is being used, he has a safe seat and the DEM leaders figure he can recover from this nonsense he is spewing
Obama should STFU until he is a little older and wiser.
He should apply for a job as a journalist.
Just now finding their voices ?
Give me a break, there's been an incessant anti Iraq policy pounding for months if not years.
President Bush ought to smile, look into the TV cameras and say; "Well, Ok Obama, you want me to apologize for all the errors made on Iraq?" Broadening his smile he go on with; "I'll be big about it Obama." And finally facing the camera and looking very sorrowful he should finish with, "I'd like to offer the American people an apology and ask that they forgive Obama and the rest of the demoRatic party for all the errors they've made on Iraq." : )
Did Billy Clinton ever admit "errors" over Somalia, Hillarycare, Monica, Bosnia, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elián, Osama, North Korea, Iraq, the Sudan...?
Hey, Osama Bama Ubamma, Hillary plays the shrew far better than you, so give it up. Pu$$ie boy.
Obama, Osama, Obama, Osama, Obama, Osama...
I look forward to your analysis of the reports issued this week by the United Nations weapons inspectors. To me, they clearly show—they clearly show—that Saddam continues to thumb his nose at the world and is in material breach—and is in material breach—of the 1441, the most recent U.N. resolution. They bolster the case that the United States has made that Iraq is violating the terms of surrender. And I want to term it in terms of surrender. I am so frustrated by some other parts of this administration of injecting into this debate a notion relating to preemption that has not a damn thing to do with whether or not we move against Saddam Hussein. I would hope the president and everyone else would stop talking about a doctrine you can't even explain—you can't even explain—to the American public. You can't explain to us because it's confusing to the rest of the world. We are not acting as if we act preemptively. We are enforcing a surrender document. Saddam Hussein invaded another country. The world responded. If this were 1930 he would have signed a peace agreement. It's not. We have a United Nations. He signed onto in return for his ability to stay in power, he made a commitment to the world, several commitments. Enforcing that if necessary is not preemption—is not preemption—whatever the hell that doctrine is supposed to mean. And so, I would respectively suggest that when you talk about this, do not further confuse the devil out of the rest of the world and make us sound like a bunch of cowboys that we're going to be out there preemptively imposing our view. This is an enforcement of a binding international legal commitment that a man made to save his skin and stay in power. In the legal sense, it's clear that Iraq is in material breach. But the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof, not legally have to meet it, but practically to enhance our greater interest. We have to meet the highest standards of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe. I'm going to say something that's mildly controversial, but since I said it in front of 500 world leaders the last three days in Davos, every world leader in Europe and the Middle East knows he's in material breach. They know it. Why aren't they responding? We have no, with the possible exception of England, significant, powerful leader in Europe today. That's not a criticism, that's an observation. And they are unwilling, in my view, to stand up the face of public opinion in their communities that run from 95 percent to 70 percent against this war based upon him being in material breach as defined.
Much more in Biden's own words here. Perhaps some FReepers will read more than I did, which was a bunch.
You provide the "critical questions", we'll proved the "straight answers"!!
The Dem/MSM proganda campaign has become so transaparent, I think even the Sheeple can see through it - of course the Moonbats & DUmmies are still clueless . . .
Nothing but empty smiles in response. He's a liberal - there is no need for actual accomplishment.
On the day that the scumbag Democrats admit that they wasted over six trillion taxpayer dollars on their welfare-state "war on poverty" and announce that they are "pulling out", that's the day Bush can consider "admitting errors" in the war on global terrorism.
Not one second sooner.
As Dan Rather would say, "FEA".
Ah, I see.
The President should take foreign policy advice from the Junior Senator from Illinois barely in his first term.
No thanks.
Last time he took advice from your party we got Miers. He's better off when he listens to the base that got him elected than the cut and run squadron on the Left that lost 'Nam. Even better than us, he listens to the forces on the ground that actually know what's going on vs the propaganda organs of this country writing their fictionalized accounts to brainwash the masses about our successes.
Weak.
OsamaObamaOsama..how about asking the clintons for some "straight talk" on Able Danger? We sure could have used some of those "unanswered questions" back in the 90s.
Or, we could take politics out of the issue if the Dem's would stop turning it into a political issue.