Hussein is to Islamofascists as John Kerry is to North Vietnam--a cheerleader for America's enemy.
Posted on 03/08/2009 11:30:23 PM PDT by FBD
President Obama said the military was not winning the counter insurgency war in Afghanistan as he opened the door for peace negotiations.
By persuading Iraqi Sunni insurgents to turn on al-Qaeda extremists, US commanders engineered a sharply drop in violence in Iraq.
President Obama said deals similar to those implemented by General David Petraeus in Iraq could be cut in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaeda in Iraq."
"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region, but the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex," he told the New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
No, he doesn’t even pretend to be a Christian anymore.
I am not a politician. I am a lawyer.
I suggest that the BEST political and legal strategy is to have bo removed from POTUS, an office for which he is blatantly Constitutionally UNQUALIFIED.
So donate to www.ObamaCrimes.info if you really want to do something constructive, politically and legally.
Thanks for the link.
In the following interview, Obama stated, “I have Muslims in my own family. I have lived in Muslim countries. …..And America’s a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, and nonbelievers. …….And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”
Check this out. Our military gets it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw
U.S. President Barack Obama's proposal to reach out to moderate Taliban will fail to end the Afghan insurgency as it is inflexible Taliban leaders who are orchestrating the war, not moderates, analysts said.
"Obama's comment resemble a dream more than reality," said Waheed Mozhdah, an analyst who has written a book on the Taliban.
"'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?", asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.
Great -- snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Vietnam revisited.
Even if you negotiate with the enemy, you negotiate from strenght, not from weakness -- saying we are not winning is equivalent to surrender. If the Taliban get back into power, the blood of all the innocents they will slaughter will be on Obama's hands.
Zero is showing his true loyalties...I wonder if this quote below may also have been the reason for the return of the Churchill bust:
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities.
Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.
It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” - Winston Churchill
Perhaps the taliban will have more “moderate” beheadings.
You said — “I suggest that the BEST political and legal strategy is to have bo removed from POTUS, an office for which he is blatantly Constitutionally UNQUALIFIED.”
The only method that I see that will work in removing Obama from office is the one that I’m currently supporting in my state of Oklahoma. That is to have this legislation successfully made into law that requires any candidate to produce specific documentation to be on the ballot. Arizona is doing this, too — right now.
Now..., I don’t see any other viable way to accomplish removing Obama, except through this methodology (that I just mentioned) and doing so in the next election that he has to go through. And, along with that, I would work on reducing his support, politically, in the meantime.
So, I am working to remove him from office — in a “way that works” in the world that we’re living in.
—
Now, if it ever comes to some court of law certifying any kind of documentation that proves Obama is not Constitutionally qualified, then we would have something to “point to” that is *certified by a court of law* to that effect.
I don’t think that even this kind of certified evidence to that effect would even generate an Impeachment process, but that it would have to be taken up to the Supreme Court, for a final decision on the matter.
But, it would allow for a significant change in the voting public to get Obama out of office in the next election, along with those state laws that I’m talking about.
Now, that’s “strategy” that can work, and is in the process of “working” right now.
Even the Janet Reno look alikes are gone. All that’s left are male virgins.
SCOTUS has the Constitutional power to remove BO from POTUS.
You said — “SCOTUS has the Constitutional power to remove BO from POTUS.”
Well, it’s on that point that I don’t think so.
We have seen a President subject to the process in the Constitution, of Impeachment and Trial (the House and Senate). That’s been a process that has actually been engaged in. It’s a known and Constitutional process.
Now, on the other hand, I have not seen even a “whiff” of a “process” — begun, started, engaged in — by the Supreme Court, for the purpose of removing a sitting President. I’ve never heard of it being *started* or I’ve never heard of the Supreme Court ever theoretically stating that they have the power, themselves (to remove a sitting President).
Furthermore, I would be interested in knowing what law schools teach this theory of law that the Supreme Court has the power to remove a sitting President. That would be interesting to explore the discussion and issues raised — from that law school — that teaches this. I would be interested in knowing where this material is at, with this law school that provides this kind of teaching.
All that *I know* — at the present — is that the only people who say that this is possible, happen to be “board posters” — which doesn’t inspire me to any great confidence in the legal theory — in addition to what I mentioned above, in that it’s never even been “engaged in*, started or even theoretically discussed by these institutions, themselves, as possible.
Mind you, the Congress states very clearly that *it* has this power to remove a sitting President. They have no qualms about stating the power that is given to them. But, the Supreme Court, has never stated any such power, at all...
Thus, it appears to be an “Internet idea” of how the law works... :-)
Secret Service must cringe hearing this!
In this week’s column I dubbed this “Trinket Diplomacy” and opine that Hillary sent Huma down the Staples to get an easy button. Of course a reference to Mel Brooks trading Paddle Balls for Indian land closes it.
“HRC is busy handing out plastic “reset” buttons.”
Make that OVERCHARGE buttons. More accurate in more ways than one.
Yikes, he’s growing!
They sure do.
THANK YOU for the link!
.
LOL!
Hussein II does not like what he is reading on his Telly-Tubby Prompter!
Doesn’t look like it, huh?
Hussein is to Islamofascists as John Kerry is to North Vietnam--a cheerleader for America's enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.