Posted by Mark Silva at 6:15 am and updated at 11:45 am CST
With the passage of each incredibly early-campaign day, the war in Iraq is becoming a more important factor in the presidential election campaign of 2008.
Now that both the Democrats and Republicans have identified their three most potent candidates, only one has arrived with untarnished anti-war credentials: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
It is their stances on the war, perhaps more than any other issue, that distinguishes the three early front-runners in the Democratic field – all of them challenging President Bush's escalation of military force in Iraq – from the three leaders of the Republican pack, all of them supporting Bush's troop deployment.
Obama on the war.
Yet the Democrats, drawing on overwhelming public opposition to the president's handling of the situation in Iraq, are competing among themselves for anti-war credentials with voters.
On the wintry Illinois day that Obama – the one candidate among the potential front-runners who has opposed the war in Iraq from the start – was declaring his self-admitted "improbable'' candidacy for the presidency, the party's putative front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, found herself defending her own evolving stance on the war on her first New Hampshire campaign day.
Clinton, who like more than three-quarters of the U.S. Senate supported the 2002 resolution authorizing use of military force in Iraq, has said that if she knew then what she knows today about the lack of a threat which Iraq posed she would not have voted for war. Yet, Clinton has stopped short of the words that another war-supporting senator then and candidate for the '08 Democratic presidential nomination today has offered -- with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina saying: "I was wrong.''
The Clinton campaign was touting the size of the crowd that the former First Lady drew in Concord, N.H., on Saturday, with her first campaign appearance in the first-primary election-state since campaigning there with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, in 1996.
But if there were 3,000 assembled in the Granite State capital, as the Clinton campaign claimed, it was the question of one man in a crowd of 350 earlier in the day in Berlin that underscores Clinton's challenge.
"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Roger Tilton, a 46-year-old financial adviser from Nashua, N.H., told Clinton at the Berlin town hall meeting. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."
In response, Clinton repeated her assertion that "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it," and said voters would have to decide for themselves whether her position was acceptable. "The mistakes were made by this president who misled this country and this Congress," Clinton said to applause in the hall.
Yet later, Tilton told the Associated Press that he was not satisfied with the answer and was inclined to support either Edwards or Obama. "I love what she says about health care, I love what she says about capping troop levels, I love what she says about the war now," said Tilton, maintaining that he will remain undecided until Clinton offers a clearer answer to the war question.
Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Clinton's campaign and former Democratic National Committee chairman, maintains that Clinton owes no apology for the war vote. "This was George Bush's mistake -- not Hillary Clinton's,'' McAuliffe said in an interview today with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Clinton promised at a winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington that if Bush does not put an end to the war in Iraq before the next president takes office, and she is elected, "I will.'' She also has proposed a cap on the troop levels that the U.S. had deployed in Iraq in January, when Bush announced his new deployment.
Edwards has proposed a quick withdrawal of 40,000 U.S. troops from Iraq to demonstrate to the Iraqis that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended. And Obama, who also has proposed a troop cap at January levels, has proposed to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by March of 2008.
"America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war," Obama said Saturday in his formal campaign announcement outside the old state Capitol in Illinois. "That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace.''
The distinction between Obama and both Clinton and Edwards, however, is that Obama staked his position on the war in October 2002 – when he was a state senator, without a vote in the matter.
"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors','' Obama said at the time, "that the Iraq economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, that in concert with the international community he can be contained until in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the despot of history.
"I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst rather than best impulses in the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda,'' Obama said then. "I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars."
Edwards, asked about Obama's early comments on NBC's Meet the Press last week, said: "Yes, he's correct.''
"I will say, he wasn't burdened, like a lot of us with the information that we were receiving on the Intelligence Committee and as members of the United States Senate.'' Edwards said. "We were getting very intimate detailed information about what was actually happening in Iraq.''
But why, Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert asked, shouldn't Democratic primary voters say "on the big issue of the war, Obama was right, Edwards was wrong?''
"I was wrong,'' Edwards said. "They should say that.''
Whatever shade of opposition to the war the leading Democratic candidates have claimed, the Republican Party's front-runners in the polls and best organized on the ground have, to a man, supported the president's deployment of troops in Iraq:
War supporting Arizona Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are virtually tied in early campaign polling of likely voters in New Hampshire's Republican primary election, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is building strong campaign organizations in that and other early primary states – including a wild-card in the '08 campaign, Florida's bid for an early vote.
The problem, for the Republicans, is that public opinion appears to be with the Democrats on the war. In the latest Gallup Poll, a survey conducted Feb. 1-4, an overwhelming majority of those surveyed said they disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq: With 72 percent voicing disapproval, 26 percent approval.
And iff the war proved to be a potent force in the what the president has described as a "thumping'' of the GOP in the midterm congressional elections of 2006, it could prove even more pivotal in 2008.
Ironically, it is the trouble which the Democratic-controlled Congress is having in mounting a vote against the president's troop deployment that could place even more pressure on the Democratic Party's '08 candidates to offer a solution.
For lack of action in Congress, all eyes turn to the candidates. And for now, the only major candidate who has staked an unequivocal stance against the war is the newest one, Obama.
Tribune wire services contributed to this report.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
2008 can wait Iraq has to be decided now. We no longer can be there without a plan for victory. We as a Country must decide what we want. More of our kids killed or wounded for no plan. Or to say enough time to redeploy into bases and let Iraq stand on her own. We as a Country must watch the hearings to hear the truth. We now know for a fact that we where lied to to go to war with Iraq. Over the last few years after 9/11 we are no safer. I don't care if its a Republican or Democrat that step up to the plate we need to make Iraq the issue Now. Military Families and the Troops need that debate their life's are on the line. Not people here who just talk or post on blogs. Right or left talking point do not work when its our kids dying or being wounded.
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 11, 2007 9:13 AM
Have no fear. Our troops will be on the way home in time for the election. After the pre-ordained failure of the Iraqi action against the various militias,we will proclaim that we tried and they failed. We will have created a scapegoat for our failure at a reasonable cost.Our "dribble" will only cost a few hundred GI deaths and a few thousand GI wounded plus a few thousand Iraqi deaths. I ask you,is this too high a price to get out of there? Our administration does not think so.
Posted by: c. perry | February 11, 2007 9:39 AM
From today's New York Times
Frank Rich: Stop Obama before he's 'too' experienced
Excerpts:
What Obama did not have to say is that he had the judgment about Iraq that his rivals lacked. As an Illinois state senator with no access to intelligence reports, he recognized in October 2002 that administration claims of Saddam's "imminent and direct threat to the United States" were hype and foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would be of "undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Nor can he be pilloried as soft on terrorism by the Cheney-Lieberman axis of neo-McCarthyism. "I don't oppose all wars," he said in the same Chicago speech. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war."
Washington's conventional wisdom has it that the worse things go in the war, the more voters will want to stick with the tried and true: Clinton, McCain, Giuliani. But as Obama reminds us, "Nobody had better Washington resumes than Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld." In the wake of the catastrophe they and their enablers in both parties have made, the inexperienced should have a crack at inheriting the earth, especially if they're clean.
"What people are looking for is judgment."
Posted by: Lauren | February 11, 2007 9:55 AM
How can the war be an issue in 2008?
It takes two sides to have the war be an issue, and if you read the "Swamp", there is only one side on the war. Just read the above article, where all the people quoted (Edwards, Obama, Clinton, even some questioner named Tilton) were anti-war Democrats.
The Republicans are quite confident of winning the debate on the war--if the mainstream media allow them into the debate. Democrats like the reporter above obviously think the only way they can win the debate is to make sure the Republican side is never heard.
Posted by: bruce | February 11, 2007 10:19 AM
bruce again talking points do not work. Both sides need to debate and it was the Republicans who stopped the open debate. I have been watching maybe you should and stop with talking points and demand both sides debate. Kids life's are on the line or don't you see the plan is not working again
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 11, 2007 10:47 AM
The Republicans are quite confident of winning the debate on the war--if the mainstream media allow them into the debate. Democrats like the reporter above obviously think the only way they can win the debate is to make sure the Republican side is never heard.
Posted by: bruce | Feb 11, 2007 10:19:36 AM
Bush has had his voice in the media for years now. I believe that the last election he got the answer. Confident is not the word I'ld use to discribe it. Maybe lunacy!
Posted by: bill r. | February 11, 2007 10:49 AM
Bruce,
You're chasing your own tail on this one.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | February 11, 2007 10:52 AM
The Republicans have had the floor for the last four years on Iraq. The '06 election was a sound rejection of Iraq policy, a "thumpin" if you will. What we are seeing now in the Senate with the Republicans preventing debate on Iraq will lead to their "slaughter" in '08. You'd think they would have learned that if they continue to ignore the will of the people, they will pay.
Preventing debate in the Senate with their stalling tactics and procedural game playing is appalling. It reminds me of the North Vietnamese at the Paris peace talks who argued about the shape of the negotiating table and other irrelevancies while the war raged. Now our Republican Senators are stalling this most important of debates while our troops are still fighting. They are content to drag this out at the expense of the troops. This tactic is not supporting the troops, it simply uses them as pawns.
The war supporters keep saying that no one else has a plan. What they fail to understand is that the presidents "plan" is no plan at all and has as much chance as the proverbial snowball. It is just another chapter of failing to understand the realities on the ground.in Iraq.
Posted by: Fred Carani | February 11, 2007 11:05 AM
Here is update this Week the U.S. House will debate Iraq each member has five minutes to make his or her points. Boehner is mad because the funding for certain programs in Iraq may be cut. Not the Troops but programs that money is missing from. Also this week Bob Filner Chairman of the Veterans Committee has a round table with Veterans, returning troops on the lack of care from the VA. These will be real combat troops not Nicholson or any other person who has been lying on care. These will be on C-Span watch and learn the truth.
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 11, 2007 11:09 AM
I’m with Dale on that. Bruce if your objective is to try the republic-- spin, it’s not working.
Posted by: Rory M | February 11, 2007 11:11 AM
Bruce, you are pathetic.
We never should have into Iraq a 2nd time. Bush gave us nothing but lies about justification for going there the 2nd time. What debate is there? Now, Republicans are trying to pin the Iraqi failure on their usual suspects; liberals, media, Clinton, Carter, blah, blah, blah. Never mind that Republicans held majority for six years across most branches of government & did whatever they wanted to do, because they were in the position to do so.
By the way, what's you pick for a presidential candidate that would be better then Obama? I've yet the read this or any other blog where someone was suggested as a viable alternative.
So to the Bruce's, Leo's, Pablo's out there. Put yourself on the line an actually come up with someone. Otherwise, your attacks on the best presidential candidate are hollow.
Posted by: RomanB | February 11, 2007 11:11 AM
The blow back from this war will resonate long after 2008. Let's hope whoever does get elected at least listens to the will of the people.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 11, 2007 12:56 PM
A Newsday op-ed of W from a professor of clinical psychology:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opsie105088567feb11,0,7521616.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | February 11, 2007 1:22 PM
The pro war Republicans claim that a non -binding resolution is useless yet they're falling all over themselves to prevent it from happening.
A non-binding resolution is just the first baby step towards ending W.'s pretend war,the best is yet to come.
I can't wait for these Republicans to go back to their home districts and tell their people that they voted YES for the war again.
The Republicans are going to be even more in the Minority after the 08 elections are finished.
Posted by: John E. | February 11, 2007 2:08 PM
Evidently I touched a nerve when I (an ex-Democrat who's disillusioned by the extemists) pointed out that only one side of the Iraq debate is being presented in the "Swamp". Note that none of the responses tried to deny how one-sided "Swamp" coverage is.
Reporter Mark Silva has attracted the readership his one-sided columns deserve: readers who don't want both sides of an issue covered.
Posted by: Bruce | February 11, 2007 2:14 PM
Yes Barack | No Iraq
Posted by: 17 | February 11, 2007 2:59 PM
To the Romans,Dales,and Freds' et al As a fully recovered liberal
it's comical to read the same old refrain about Mr. Bush and how he lied to all these very smart democrats in the house and the senate.
Just because you fools' said he lied does'nt make it so. He got the go ahead from almost 80% of congress, like it or not that's the reality.
In regards to Mr. Obama, his half brother Roy is now and always has been a practicing Muslim. Do you nit -wits actually think Americans will vote him in ?. Put a fork in him he's done!! By the way does anybody know what Sandy Berger was taping to his ankles? Well I'm sure it was'nt too important.
Posted by: Don B. | February 11, 2007 3:08 PM
Can someone please provide me with more information on what Obama stands for? Everything we see now is a 15 second video clip or a biased news article. Obama is a hollow candidate. He is trying to cuddle himself into the image of Lincoln and Kennedy while showing a lack of a spine to make a tough decision as President. "The Great Unitor" faced 2-1/2 years of most the country hating him and barely survived a mid-term election, and Kennedy had the intestinal fortitude to successfully handle the Cuban Missile Crisis. The only thing I've seen Obama do in the Senate is puff his chest to Senator McCain and then beg back into his good graces. Maybe in 2012 or 2016 when he has a record in Washington. The country is in too tough a situation for a weenie liberal to handle.
Posted by: John Kajmowicz | February 11, 2007 3:48 PM
Don B, As a fully recovered liberal..dude off the liberal on to the neo-con. Same addiction different name. AA.
Posted by: Dave Grohl | February 11, 2007 4:11 PM
Bruce,
Why don't you use this forum to present "the other side of the Iraq debate" or would that require substance from you rather than yet another media attack on the messenger? Besides, if "the other side" is what I suspect, that game's been played, over and over. As for your party switch, there are extremists on both sides of the aisle, and neither side needs another tiresome hack.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | February 11, 2007 4:23 PM
D.D you just don't get it do you. Clinton and boys are long gone. Your talking points are meaning less. We are talking kids being wounded and dying. And Bush and Cheney's lies are now public record. They have been cought in everyone of them. The Debate is about Iraq now not Clinton or any other right wing talking points. Maybe if you had or have family there you would want the debate. Only Cowards and people with no clue want the truth covered up. Read the above update no one can stop the U.S. House debate. The truth will be told and uncovered in the upcoming hearings. It already started in Waxmans Committee.
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 11, 2007 4:29 PM
Iraq??? Hey what about the war in IRAN? Looks like that will still be going on in 2008.
Posted by: athena | February 11, 2007 4:51 PM
The war in Iraq: Issue of '08?
YES!
The cost of this war in American & Iraqi lives & US$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is THE issue. All other issues pale in comparison and cannot be addressed until we address/fix this one.
Posted by: dylan | February 11, 2007 5:00 PM
Enough about going after someones beliefs . Or do you want to talk about Bush talking to God and God telling him to go to war with Iraq. If you believe in God fine if you don't fine too. The issues are Budget Cuts, Health Care for Veterans and Seniors, and the War in Iraq. That's the debate not talking points. Knock off the Clinton points he is gone. Republicans have had their way for six years show me anything they have done to protect America. Show me anything they have done for the Middle Class or the poor. Tell me why under their watch homeless veterans have gone from 38,000 to 230,000 VA own numbers. Show me why every paper in the US is saying returning troops cannot find jobs. Tell me why 150,000 of those returning troops are on waiting list at the VA again VA own numbers. Thats the debate not Clinton or someones beliefs in God or the way they where raised
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 11, 2007 5:27 PM
Don,
It's already a fact Bush lied, it's just too many Replicans are in denial, just like Bush is in denial about what he thinks he's going to accomplish.
By the way, they also said a Catholic would never be elected president, as people of your narrow-minded ilk believed. But, maybe it was some sort of liberal media consipracy that Kennedy was elected president.
Posted by: RomanB | February 11, 2007 5:34 PM
But, maybe it was some sort of liberal media consipracy that Kennedy was elected president.
Posted by: RomanB | Feb 11, 2007 5:34:13 PM
Well, it may have had something to do with a host of dead people voting in Illinois. Which very well may have been a "liberal conspiracy," but that was a bit before my time. Though largely liberal, I am still prepared to call a spade a spade.
Posted by: Bryan | February 11, 2007 5:54 PM
All right why do I feel we seen this show before. The U.S. today say they are showing proof that Iran is in Iraq. Ok I do believe that. But here there proof tell me what's wrong with this picture
http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/iran-in-iraq.pdf
One thing I will point out look at the weapons. In English I do not think so. Fool me once not again
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 11, 2007 6:16 PM
Already the Supreme Idiot, otherwise known as Barack Obama, is calling our good allies names and starting a war of words with them. Way to go Barack!! Piss off our friends!! This guy is a joke to the Nth degree!
Posted by: John D | February 11, 2007 8:00 PM
John D,
Based on the last 5 years, WHAT FRIENDS?!
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | February 11, 2007 10:40 PM
As we make a case against Iran for helping insurgence in Iraq, our big problem is our credibility in the eyes of the world. All one needs to do is look at our cherry picked reasons for going into Iraq and they will not back "any" reason no matter what the proof. For all those that say what the world thinks doesn't mater....
go do 60 crunches and hit the showers.
Posted by: bill r. | February 12, 2007 6:01 AM
Kenny Bunkport, I know having a clue is not necessary to be a leftie. But U.S. friends include Great Britain, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, much of Africa (Bush has spent more to help AIDS in Africa than any U.S. president COMBINED), Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia (they are still thankful for all the money spent and military to help after the tsunami), Kuwait, all of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet satellite Republics, Poland (gee, they want to build a shrine to Ronald Reagan in Poland), and I could continue. Just because France, China, North Korea, Venezuala, Iran don't like us and increasingly the revival of the Soviet Communists in Russia doesn't mean the world hates us. Only you Loony Lefties hate America.
Posted by: John D | February 12, 2007 8:30 AM
Exposing the lies that are Dale Peters. Here are some facts and a website to help expose those lies.
First of all some facts:
VA Requests $87 Billion for Veterans in Landmark FY ’08 Budget
Continuing to honor the nation’s commitment to meet the needs of America’s veterans, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson announced on Feb. 5 that President Bush will seek a landmark budget of nearly $87 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, with health care and disability compensation for veterans receiving the majority of the spending. The budget proposal represents an increase of $37.8 billion, or 77 percent, from the budget in effect when the President took office.
The proposal calls for $42 billion in discretionary funding – mostly for health care – which is the largest amount ever requested by a president. It also would provide $45 billion in mandatory funding, mostly for compensation, pension, educational assistance, home loan guaranties and other benefit programs.
During Bush's presidency spending on the Vets has increased 77 percent over 6 years. That comes to better than a 12 percent average each year of Bush's presidency.
Regardling homeless Veterans, according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, there is no known number. What homeless group do though is calculate than about 23 percent of the homeless in the country are Vets (which is very unfortunate). However, Dale lies and tells us there were 38,000 when Bush took office and now according to the VA there are over 230,000. But according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the numbers of homeless vets has pretty much remained the same since 1996. That's right, the number of homeless vets is basically unchanged since 1996.
Posted by: John D | February 12, 2007 8:44 AM
John D,
You're gonna have to show proof that he's called anyone names? I've heard your people call him a Muslim terrorist, but I've never heard him call another world leader a name. Proof Johny D, we want proof since you've got a track history full of lies.
Posted by: Janet | February 12, 2007 8:54 AM
Janet: I never said Barack called anyone names. I said he started a war of words with one of our best allies: John Howard from Australia. Are you smart enough to find that story on your own, or do you need help?
Also, please point out any lies I've stated!
Posted by: John D | February 12, 2007 9:48 AM
John D,
Not surprising given your blind obedience to W's policies, you're mistaking the leader of the country with the entire country. Quite a motley crew of "friends." Polls show most of the people of the UK consider Bush more of a threat than Kim Jong Il. Blair is on the way out (as are UK troops), and his alignment with Bush on Iraq is a major cause. The majority of Aussies don't agree with John Howard on Iraq and their relatively few troops are there in non-combat roles. Some of your other examples are laughable. Japan? Taiwan? Gee, do you think they want our help as North Korea/China test missles? I'm glad Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw "he's a good man." What did our "friend" say about the US over the weekend? Pakistan? Maybe if Mussharif wasn't cutting his own deals with war lords and lining his pockets with US foreign aid, we'd actually be able to track down Bin Laden. Remember him? Ditto Afghanistan.
If you have to buy "friends," they're not friends. Save your money and buy your own clue.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | February 12, 2007 10:24 AM
After watching Fox News this weekend it's clear that the issues of 2008 is going to be about Anna Nicole Smith, what religion are Barack Obama's family members, and does the second person in line for the Presidency deserve a military plane in a post 9/11 world if said person is a liberal female from San Francisco.
Posted by: jethro | February 12, 2007 11:24 AM
"Already the Supreme Idiot, otherwise known as Barack Obama, is calling our good allies names and starting a war of words with them."
Posted by: John D | Feb 11, 2007 8:00:07 PM
"Janet: I never said Barack called anyone names."
Posted by: John D | Feb 12, 2007 9:48:54 AM
You are perhaps the worst person claiming to be a journalist, John D. There is one lie and I only had to look back to 9:48 to find whene you claimed you never said Barack Obama called anyone names, yet at 8:00 you said those exact words. I am stunned how the truth eludes you and you can't admit you fabrications and lies.
Posted by: Janet | February 12, 2007 11:39 AM
"Janet: I never said Barack called anyone names. I said he started a war of words with one of our best allies: John Howard from Australia. Are you smart enough to find that story on your own, or do you need help?
Also, please point out any lies I've stated!"
Johnny D- There's a lie right there. Obama did not start the war of words Howard did. Howard criticized Obama first. Howard decided that he should interject himself into US politics not the other way around.
Posted by: Tony | February 12, 2007 2:10 PM
John Howard was asked a question about Sen. Obama's proposal to have our troops leave in a year. So, Prime Minister Howard answered the question and criticized our affable but seriously in over his head Senator. Said Senator then attacked the Prime Minister of Australia. Nice move at foreign relations I would say.
Why is it when Leftie leaders say things about our president like Hugo Chavez or Assad from Syria or Putin or Kim Jong Ill you Loony Lefties are gleeful, but when a true foreign leader challenges the our rock star senator, then that is out of line?
Posted by: John D | February 12, 2007 3:17 PM
All beside the point, Johnny D. Howard started the war of words and made the diplomatic blunder. Not Obama. You're caught in a lie again.
By the way, what bizzaro world do you live in where Putin is a leftie?
Posted by: Tony | February 12, 2007 3:33 PM
John D. gets offended when other leaders say things about our President. I'm so sorry to hear that John D. By the way John D., Bush is an incompetent moron. What is his approval rating these days?? Just watch the guy when he speaks. He's clueless. He doesn't even make sense. He the absolute worst President this country has had. He's a bumbling imbecile, a complete disgrace to a majority of Americans and the world. Except for quacks in denial like you and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
I'm quite certain the moment Aussie soldiers started getting blown up in Iraq, they would all be called back to Australia.
Posted by: Doug R. | February 12, 2007 3:53 PM
Tony, where is the world is Putin a Leftie? Putin is a communist. Communists are to the Far Left. Pretty simple, really. Communism always is put at the far left end of the political spectrum.
Regarding John Howard. He was asked a question about Obama's "plan." He criticized Obama's plan. Barack jumped on Prime Minister Howard. John Howard is a world leader. Barack Obama is a do-nothing junior senator in way over his head. Facts are facts.
Posted by: John D | February 13, 2007 9:00 AM
Uhh, Johnny D, Vladimir Putin is not a Communist.
Putin heads the United Russia Party, which is a conservative & nationalist party.
The world has moved on from Communism Johnny. Come join us in the 21st century.
Johnny, just admit it. Howard criticized Obama first, Obama responded to Howard. You lied when you accused Obama of starting a war of words. Facts are facts, and the fact is you are a serial liar.
Posted by: Tony | February 13, 2007 9:25 AM