Should have thought of that first, I suppose. As though nobody in his audience is old enough to remember what he, and others in his administration, said before.

Of course, everything Obama tells you will be the truth, not something he thinks you want to hear. Good luck next year.

You don’t have to try and shoehorn Bush into your worldview. He wrote a book about what he thinks now and thought then.

P.S. Who was Obama lying to at the Malaki press conference?

Do you really think he should have told those troops what he REALLY thought about our glorious Barbarossa? That self-serving, treacherous monsters sold them down the river for political and ideological reasons? That a greasy huddle of morally bankrupt gangsters made them pay in blood and agony for their political fantasies and imperialsitic dreams? That the friends and limbs and sanity and broken families and marriages they left behind were all for nothing?

Of course not. He had to lie to them. The men that came back were heroes, even if the war was not heroic; the least he could do for them was to tell them the little white lie that it really was worth it all. And you, Tom, all you can think of is “How are we going to turn this back on Barrack Hussein Obama so we can feel better about our own little complicity in this crime of the century?” Shame on you.

At least, Bush now knows what happened, and I really think he feels genuinely sorry for what happened. I can see it in his eyes, he is not an evil man, like Cheney and all those despicable chickenhawks in the White House. I don’t think Bush really meant it to come out like this, but he really didn’t know any better, and I think it will haunt him the rest of his life, haunt him with genuine regret. I actually feel sorry for him, he didn’t really know what he was doing. But those around him knew, they knew perfectly well. And they are still on TV making excuses for their shock and awe, their renditions, their enhanced interrogation techniques, their waterboarding, their missions accomplished. But for you, every day is just another opportunity to come up with another excuse to blame it on someone else, to justify your own complicity, not in the war, but in the justifications and rationalizations and excuses for it, because even the slightest peep of protest out of you might have been embarassing for the criminals that have foisted this entire Neocon blood fantasy on this country for almost a decade.

Of course Obama’s not saying “thank God we’re done with that quagmire,”. How could he possibly look those men in the face and tell them that? That would be spitting in the face of those heroes, and on the flag they carried. They have already been spit on, and their colors disgraced, by the war criminals that conspired to send them there.

Yeah, I would have lied to them too. I wouldn’t have had the courage to tell them the truth, either.

Even he has realized that blaming Bush wasn’t impressing anyone any more.

I was talking about what he’s saying about the war in Iraq. He’s not saying “thank God we’re done with that quagmire,” is he?

It’s so damn hard keeping a train of thought on track around here.

I didn’t mention any book by Cheney, which I wouldn’t read either, but if you don’t like paying a pile for books or supporting the author, try libraries or used bookstores. That’s what I do.

P.S. If you don’t have handy used bookstores, try online ones. I use ABE a lot, but there are others.

TB, I’m still concerned with the consequences of Bush-Cheney’s 8 years, which have lasted far beyond their reign.

As far as reading all of your posts, many of us have complained about such tactics as a title:

“Interesting”. Open the thing and it says “here”. With no synopsis, no description of what you think about it, nothing.

Or you link to some blog which has the history of Western Civilization from the perspective of a right-wing fundamentalist who goes on for 1500 pages.

I will do this. I will read Cheney’s book if I can find it used. I will NOT buy it new. And as for your posts, if you can’t demonstrate you’ve read them, why should I?

If you read everything linked, you may end up learning something you didn’t want to know. Like I didn’t really need to know about South African Leaping Cockroaches.

Just for fun, look up what Ron Paul and Walt Jones thought about the attack on Libya.

Did you read those books on Reagan I recommended? Or the links I always post? The charts? The websites? Anything at all I use as a reference or evidence?

I should have been more precise (assuming my “quote” is any more accurate than most of your others).

Use this one: “I don’t need political hacks telling me what to think.”

You’re still icejammed at 2008. Work on that.

Barack H. Obama, President and current leader of the Democratic Party, has declared that the War in Iraq worked. I posted links to both the press conference and the speech at Fort Bragg.

Like I said, take it up with him.

Kind of fun watching both you and Bowser completely ignore my point. Bowser, at least, is likely to scrape Obama off his shoes along with Bush. Wonder what Buck will say.

I suggested to TB he read one, Clarke’s I believe. “Against All Enemies”. Clarke first worked for Reagan, then GHWB, then Clinton and continued into GWB’s administration. A distinguished guy.

TBs response to reading a book was, “I don’t need anyone else telling me how to think.”

That took me completely by surprise. How a nice guy, reasonable in many ways and areas, could regard reading a book, learning another’s view on matters and information to which he may have been privy, could have been regarded that way was a shock.

And then I realized it has happened to me. Reading about issues has changed my opinion on them. The American government’s attitude toward MIA-POWs is one.

So the idea of avoiding information which may conflict with preconceived notions is a superb, and guaranteed to protect those stands.