Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... stan?lite=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"On Sunday, Karzai said in a speech that the U.S. was colluding with the Taliban to keep foreign forces in Afghanistan beyond next year's planned withdrawal, and he went so far as to accuse the two sides of holding daily meetings."

"By Sunday night, Dunford was compelled to say the U.S. did "not have a broken relationship” with Karzai or a lack of trust. Hagel told reporters that as a former politician himself he “can understand the kind of pressures national leaders are always under,” and that the two countries will be able to move forward together."





Yup, Obama wil have us out of there by....uh...well...you know, sometime.

Oh, and at least two more US soldiers (people, citizens) were killed in yet another inside attack. Things are going swimmingly for Obushma.


The Libs, of course, will soon post Obama's death toll.

Karzai is a crook and has certainly been skimming lots of boodle from U.S. aid. He's just trying to save his own sorry neck after his "nation" descends into its natural state of anarchy and civil war.

Karzai isn't entirely wrong. Obama is funding a Taliban office in Doha.

The sooner we're out of there the better.

CitadelGrad wrote:Karzai isn't entirely wrong. Obama is funding a Taliban office in Doha.

Do tell...

Grizalltheway wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Karzai isn't entirely wrong. Obama is funding a Taliban office in Doha.

Do tell...

I just did.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Do tell...

I just did.

No you didn't.

You mean Obama didn't pull all of the US troops out of Afghanistan???? I thought he promised that would happen?

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
I just did.

No you didn't.

I guess ol' Deep Throat is holding in something he doesn't want to regurgitate.

grizzaholic wrote:You mean Obama didn't pull all of the US troops out of Afghanistan???? I thought he promised that would happen?

Yeah, just like he "promised" that GITMO would be closed down within a yr after he entered office. Now we're at 4+ yrs.....

BDKJMU wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:You mean Obama didn't pull all of the US troops out of Afghanistan???? I thought he promised that would happen?

Yeah, just like he "promised" that GITMO would be closed down within a yr after he entered office. Now we're at 4+ yrs.....

Candidates should say such crap. Yeah, they get briefings and such but they aren't privy to all the information that the incumbent is.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Yeah, just like he "promised" that GITMO would be closed down within a yr after he entered office. Now we're at 4+ yrs.....

Candidates should say such crap. Yeah, they get briefings and such but they aren't privy to all the information that the incumbent is.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Yeah, just like he "promised" that GITMO would be closed down within a yr after he entered office. Now we're at 4+ yrs.....

Candidates should say such crap. Yeah, they get briefings and such but they aren't privy to all the information that the incumbent is.

So blatant lies SHOULD be accepted by politicians? Your logic hurts my head.

grizzaholic wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Candidates should say such crap. Yeah, they get briefings and such but they aren't privy to all the information that the incumbent is.

So blatant lies SHOULD be accepted by politicians? Your logic hurts my head.

Once they get into office, I'm sure they have some "come to Jesus" meetings about what the real skinny is. It's not exactly a stretch to think there might be more to each circumstance than the hoi poloi is privvy to. And some of that shit might not exactly be ready for prime time.

kalm wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So blatant lies SHOULD be accepted by politicians? Your logic hurts my head.

Once they get into office, I'm sure they have some "come to Jesus" meetings about what the real skinny is. It's not exactly a stretch to think there might be more to each circumstance than the hoi poloi is privvy to. And some of that shit might not exactly be ready for prime time.

So your not saying he didn't welch on his promise. What you are actually saying is that he is justified in doing exactly what Bush was doing that everyone on the Rachel Maddow Show was ready to impeach him over. But now that the Chosen One is up to the same old shtick, well there must be some inside info that us peons just aren't privy to.

death dealer wrote:

kalm wrote:
Once they get into office, I'm sure they have some "come to Jesus" meetings about what the real skinny is. It's not exactly a stretch to think there might be more to each circumstance than the hoi poloi is privvy to. And some of that shit might not exactly be ready for prime time.

So your not saying he didn't welch on his promise. What you are actually saying is that he is justified in doing exactly what Bush was doing that everyone on the Rachel Maddow Show was ready to impeach him over. But now that the Chosen One is up to the same old shtick, well there must be some inside info that us peons just aren't privy to.

No, I'm not saying that. I think we should be the fuck out of Afghanistan and we should literally be lynching a few Wall Street exec's...

kalm wrote:

death dealer wrote: So your not saying he didn't welch on his promise. What you are actually saying is that he is justified in doing exactly what Bush was doing that everyone on the Rachel Maddow Show was ready to impeach him over. But now that the Chosen One is up to the same old shtick, well there must be some inside info that us peons just aren't privy to.

No, I'm not saying that. I think we should be the **** out of Afghanistan and we should literally be lynching a few Wall Street exec's...

I dunno Kalm. It does look like that's what you were saying.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
No, I'm not saying that. I think we should be the **** out of Afghanistan and we should literally be lynching a few Wall Street exec's...

I dunno Kalm. It does look like that's what you were saying.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I could make the same case for Bush.

So you're not a realist...good to know.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I dunno Kalm. It does look like that's what you were saying.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I could make the same case for Bush.

So you're not a realist...good to know.

Don't go softening your stance on Adolf McCheneyburton now, Kalm. Remember he was the worst President EVAH!


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I could make the same case for Bush.

So you're not a realist...good to know.

Don't go softening your stance on Adolf McCheneyburton now, Kalm. Remember he was the worst President EVAH!


Sent from the center of the universe.

I think Obama and Bush are equally bad. I think the whole system is fucked. Thanks for sharing your thoughts though.

kalm wrote:

death dealer wrote: So your not saying he didn't welch on his promise. What you are actually saying is that he is justified in doing exactly what Bush was doing that everyone on the Rachel Maddow Show was ready to impeach him over. But now that the Chosen One is up to the same old shtick, well there must be some inside info that us peons just aren't privy to.

No, I'm not saying that. I think we should be the **** out of Afghanistan and we should literally be lynching a few Wall Street exec's...

There you go with that Wall Street shit again!

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
No, I'm not saying that. I think we should be the **** out of Afghanistan and we should literally be lynching a few Wall Street exec's...

There you go with that Wall Street shit again!

Shut up...socialist!

kalm wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So blatant lies SHOULD be accepted by politicians? Your logic hurts my head.

Once they get into office, I'm sure they have some "come to Jesus" meetings about what the real skinny is. It's not exactly a stretch to think there might be more to each circumstance than the hoi poloi is privvy to. And some of that **** might not exactly be ready for prime time.

Then he should have easily been able to save face. He should have come out and said that he had to reverse his stance due to new information that was unavailable to him while a candidate. Of course, that would almost be admitting he was wrong, and so of course he can't say that. This is why people are apathetic in this country...and, why I belong to no party. Where did all of the statesmen go?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

kalm wrote:
Once they get into office, I'm sure they have some "come to Jesus" meetings about what the real skinny is. It's not exactly a stretch to think there might be more to each circumstance than the hoi poloi is privvy to. And some of that **** might not exactly be ready for prime time.

Then he should have easily been able to save face. He should have come out and said that he had to reverse his stance due to new information that was unavailable to him while a candidate. Of course, that would almost be admitting he was wrong, and so of course he can't say that. This is why people are apathetic in this country...and, why I belong to no party. Where did all of the statesmen go?

Word

When a President is inept or just plain false then only the partisan flacks defend him. This has been true for both Bush and Obama.

I think Bush was false. He was a false conservative, giving people like Teddy Kennedy things like NCLB so he could get bipartisan support for his own big government push, like USAPatriot and the creation of DHS.

Obama is just inept. He isn't false because he is exactly what he said he was- a big government liberal. But he's inept because he farmed out his signature legislation to Pelosi and Co who turned it into a disaster. Now all he does is campaign and demagogue Republicans because that's all he knows how to do.

She's a world police interventionist and a corruptocrat, but Hillary Clinton would have made a better CinC than both of them, and that's a SAD testament to where we are.


Sent from the center of the universe.