Everything you stated is ok AFTER the above.
Of course more were killed when Bush was in office for 8 years. Obama 10 MONTHS and the number killed are growing rapidly, when it is not necessary if only the impostor Potus would commit to sending what is needed. So, in light of that this is O's war now and he will be blamed for what is happening and deservedly so.
Plus the fact that the News kept track EVERY stinking evening of just what the dead count was, where is the same for O's war? Fox News should get on this and keep a running total. Glen Beck, Limbaugh are you listening?
Not just for the 8 yrs but on a monthly basis in Iraq. I was just saying that it’s not like there’s casualties because Obama’s the President. I’m sure if McCain was the President there would be casualties as well. Or if Bush had stayed for 3rd ter,. More? Less? Who knows?
The issue for me isn’t even so much the casualties as his lack of action. If this was all happening as apart of a plan and there were signs of progress, fine. Casualties happen in war, and historically even the 300 or so killed this year is extremely low.
Still, he doesn’t really seem to be displaying any leadership. My point was more to compare the media reaction, though. That was the main thrust. Bush really didn’t even have naything to di with main point and looking back I don’t even really know why I brought him up at all.
I have relatives in Afghanistan and another heading there in a few months.
It is mostly the Paulites who are posting these type of threads as they think just because the IslamOfascist attacked America and declared war on us, if we don’t
think about it, the enemy will become nice people and
settle down.
Ron Paul did not vote in congress to condemn Ahmadinejad.
who is sending insurgents into the war zones and wants to take out Israel.
The Paulites sy we are trying to find boogie men and Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons is not a threat.