Regards,
Peter H.

Regards,
Peter H.

Actually, the behavior of the NYT is no surprise; remember, they had their very own Obama just a few years ago.

That way, Obama’s substance will match his vocabulary.

Hope. Change. End to this war.

We can’t use Chope to fuel our cars or our industry. Chope won’t strengthen the economy. Chope won’t protect us from our enemies. Chope doesn’t improve the greatness and exceptionalism of this country. Chope doesn’t end the “war on poverty” which has kept millions in grinding poverty and dependent on Uncle Sugar. Chope doesn’t improve education nor does it give parents the right to choose which schools to send their kids.

You can sit around hoping all you want, but nothing gets accomplished hoping for anything.

And you know d**n good and well that the Obamessiah won’t take the responsiblity for losing in Iraq. He may talk purtty and use his tongue “better than a $20 whore”, but you have to know he’s not that stupid. What’s more, the majority of Americans DO NOT want to surrender.

Regards,
Peter H.

Needless to say, if any Republican tries to engage in so-called “bipartisanship” in Washington, they get their hands smacked. Seems as though “bipartisan” means “caving in to the Dems on their demands.”

Except for Lieberman, I can’t name another politician with a (D) after their name who tried to engage in true bipartisanship.

Regards,
Peter H.

While my site and my political leanings are far left of The Gay Patriot site, what the Times did here is simply beyond the pale. There is no excuse for this partisan hackery. Or arrogance.

To all those Obama supporters who are straining their credibility to defend the Times, simply consider if the candidates names were reversed. How would you feel if the Times (of all places) chose to reject a reply by Senator Obama to an outrageously partisan op-ed printed a mere week earlier by Senator McCain? All hell would break loose.

And, if the roles were reversed, I’d be on your side (which happens to be my side, anyway).

“Hope. Change. End to this war.”

All nice ideas, but how do you implement them? Especially if you have had ZERO executive office experience (mayor/governor) and only 143 days of national legislative experience (Senate). How do you do it? Who do you appoint? What happens if under your watch, the US Embassy gets taken over by Islamofascists? (Hello, Jimmy Carter.)

Funny how both Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chavez both ran on a platform of HOPE and CHANGE. Funny how people like Stalin and Pol Pot relied on useful idiots to mandate CHANGE while expounding HOPE. Is it any wonder that Obamaniacs are so full of pride for their candidate but cannot name ONE major policy accomplishment in his Senate tenure?

Michael Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Regards,
Peter H.

No matter what McBush says, we have already heard it.

If you want to assail Obama for voting for both of Bush’s energy policies while in office, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included $2.8 billion in tax cuts to big oil, you should probably call him Obusha or something, not McBush, because then you might get him mistaken for McCain who didn’t vote for any of Bush’s energy policies during those years that Obama was in office.

In 2007 [Obama] he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been…

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence…

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.”…

…[Obama] is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely… he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will.

Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown…

Sorry, Obambi, but al Qaeda has just been driven from Iraq with its tail between its legs, such a huge blow to it that even conservative Muslim scholars are now publishing screeds to kick al Qaeda while it’s down. That’s why a few of its survivors are *returning* to the Afghanistan area (actually to Pakistan, a sovereign nation that you have suggested we invade). Or don’t you know anything that’s going on in the Muslim world?

Oh, also, love your attempt to make it sound like we are in Iraq against “the will of Iraq’s sovereign government” - when, in fact, we are there at the *request* of Iraq’s sovereign government, whose words / intent *you* recently *lied* about (that liberal Big Lie technique again).

Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown…

Sorry, Obambi, but al Qaeda has just been driven from Iraq with its tail between its legs, such a huge blow to it that even conservative Muslim scholars are now publishing screeds to kick al Qaeda while it’s down. That’s why a few of its survivors are *returning* to the Afghanistan area (actually to Pakistan, a sovereign nation that you have suggested we invade). Or don’t you know anything that’s going on in the Muslim world?

Oh, also, love your attempt to make it sound like we are in Iraq against “the will of Iraq’s sovereign government” - when, in fact, we are there at the *request* of Iraq’s sovereign government, whose words / intent *you* recently *lied* about (that liberal Big Lie technique again).

As for McCain’s column: Brilliant. He gets it. Certain points cannot be repeated enough:

In 2007 [Obama] he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been…

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence…

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.”…

…[Obama] is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely… he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will.