SilverNRed

Yeah, right. So two Democrats spend months talking about the imminent release of a Michelle Obama tape and Rush Limbaugh mentions that there are two Democrats talking about the tape on his show, so he's somehow responsible for the rumor? Get a friggin' clue. Acknowledging that there is a rumor is not giving validity to that rumor. Barack Obama (or anyone) trying to score points off this by making it about conservatives (when it was Democrats spreading the thing) is easily as pathetic as Johnson and Beckel.

It was a rumor. And the two people most responsible for spreading it were Larry Johnson (a pro-Hillary blogger) and Bob Beckel. You're blaming Rush for acknowledging that two Democrats spent months trying to convince people that there was an embarassing tape of Michelle Obama? Yeah, that makes sense.

Stop being a jerk. You crossed the line!

Are you kidding? How much would we have made over the years?? Did you only start paying attention to the stock market over the last 8 months?

News report or not, Fox is going to lose credibility when they have garbage like "Terrorist Fist Bump" and "Obama's Baby Mama" on their network. Our country could really use a good conservative news channel. Unfortunately, Fox News spends just about 0% of their time working on being professional and competent.

Still waiting for you to provide one link to a post where I praise O'Reilly as a good reporter or intelligent or anything, let alone make him out to be my "hero." I understand it's taking you a while to find it, though (several months now). I'm sure you'll get around to that just as soon as you explain why you thought Jeremiah Wright's sermons were appropriate "in context." I'm sure someone as super intelligent as you won't have any problem backing up all the things you say. You're probably just way too busy to get around to doing that, right?

She can't possibly have her job based on talent. Her voice and cadence are awful when she's reporting something. She sounds like a friggin' robot and looks uncomfortable on camera. I usually mute the TV or change the channel when she comes on.

I'll take it a step further: They should slap a "TR" patch on the jerseys for one home game. No, he was never part of the franchise but he was their highest profile fan. And Buffalo may have never had the best football team in the country, but we at least had the best reporter in the country for several years. Who knows how much longer the Bills will even be in Buffalo? There's no reason not to celebrate Tim Russert and, by extension, Buffalo fans.

F***ing terrible news.

Are you as upset about all the other troops we have stationed around the world? Or that our Navy is abroad? We do have an interest in doing what we can to maintain some stability in the world.

Note the end of the article: STFU. Just because your family can't figure out a way to get the kids through high school, that doesn't mean you have to provide a cheer squad for the ones that do make it. It is disrespectful if the next person in line can't hear their name called because you wanted to act like a moron. What if they were the only ones from their family to graduate high school?

Are you sure they "clearly do not want us around" when we're the ones helping them stabilize and rebuild their country? Taking McCain's "100 years" statement out of context doesn't make you look smart. His point is that a presence abroad isn't a bad thing so long as our troops aren't being killed for nothing. We've maintained bases overseas for decades elsewhere. If our troops were getting slaughtered left and right, I'd advocate a change in strategy. Which is what McCain actually did, even when it was extremely unpopular to do so. McCain's stance on the surge was extremely unpopular at the time, but it paid off. He deserves credit for that.

So all you care about are what politicians are saying right now, and not what they've ever been able to accomplish in their lives? That is interesting.

Post it a few more times. Maybe it will sink in eventually.

Thank you for reminding me what your "talking point" is. (And for bringing up the "100 years" BS.) McCain is right (and, apparently, so was Obama back in 2004): This shouldn't be about an artificial timetable or just bringing the troops home ASAP. You commit to troops to a task because you think it's important enough that it has to be completed. You don't send American forces to a country and then announce they have X number of months to fight before it's time to leave. Casualties matter and success matters.

Tell me what Sadr has achieved in the past few years. Can you honestly say he's getting stronger? Of course not. Like I said, people notice failure. That doesn't mean he's a nobody. We're able to swat him down every time he decides to try something exactly because we take him seriously. He's a douche that we've been dealing with for years. Our press makes him out to be a huge threat that we can't handle when, in fact, we've been handling him successfully for years and decreasing his influence for just as long. Yes, take him seriously. But don't write off a year and a half of progress in the country because al-Sadr continues to run his mouth. If anything, Petreaus is pointing out the importance of our military continuing what it's been doing.

Of course you want failure in Iraq or, at least, the appearance of failure. That's a huge talking point for your political party. Basically, military humiliation in Iraq helps you get your guys elected and you think that helps the country long term. I won't say you hate America, but you do think that losing now helps us later. (Like the Bills fans who think losing now helps later because it gets us a better draft pick.) There's no way in hell you're hoping for enormous success in Iraq due to the surge. If that happens and it gets reported, McCain probably gets elected in November. You just spent months on this board finding any ridiculous rationale you could to support Hillary over Obama. You're clearly capable of finding any rationale to downplay U.S. success in Iraq to help your party.

Because that worked out so awesome for him last time. I know our press spins everything he does as a huge success for him, but he's never achieved anything other than getting what's left of his militia slaughtered. His influence is decreasing, not the other way around. People notice when you're a failure. It's kinda sad that you have to pin your hopes for U.S. humiliation on someone like al-Sadr.

So because long term threats to stability exist we can't note important achievements or admit that things have improved significantly over the last year and a half and are still improving. Sadr is a threat we (and the Iraqis) can deal with. His power now is less than what it was a few years ago. How could it not be? He gets his ass kicked every time he decides he wants to fight and Iraqi security forces keep getting stronger. And it seems like every country on earth has some long term threats to stability.

I wouldn't ignore the political idealogy behind most reporters either. They're only going to report what makes sense to them (i.e. what fits their world view).

Muqtada al-Sadr is to warfare as the Washington Generals are to basketball. Ignore 17 months of progress because Muqtada is running his mouth again and this time he swears it'll be different.

Awesome. I think there are some people here who missed out on the cheap laughs from your first attempt to bring "Mr. Mortgage" onto the board.

When? Why?

So you're ready to dismiss a 17 month trend and won't even commit to "winning" when things are clearly improving? Gosh, it's almost like people don't want to acknowledge any good news from the region.