I dont know, It looks like casualties in 2009 have almost doubled from 2008 and the year aint over yet.

I honestly believe that NATO's committment to Afganistan is diluted with O in charge. It's not that they liked W more, it's just that he held their feet to the fire and demanded that they follow through on their commitments - even if they kept coming short. O's prolonged deliberation only reinforces the perception that he does not want to fight and why would any ally want to help us in a war we don't appear to want to win? If we don't step up, why should an ally offer to do so?

I think more evidence of O's pusillanious policies will manifest in time but a rather obvious example is Putin's offer to help Hugo go nuclear. W would have lost his shit with Putin on that one.

In short, Obama's weakness in my mind hasn't had too many negative results so far but this being only month 9 of his presidency it is only going to get worse...much worse. I think on that we can both agree.

You might want to re-phrase that a little.

Sorry, I oft times lean 'smut'.

That's just simply beastly and we refuse to respond to it.

O-o-o-o-o-o! No free car for YOU!

Again, I think you miss my points. First, Pakistan. Things owuld not have escalated had W still been in power. It is only now, when President Apology is running things do things get worse. Second, Iraq. yeah, we had an agreementto scale back, however, do you think those two huge attacks last week would have taken place had someone else been in the white house? Someone who wentin there in the first place despite being unpopular because it was the rightthing to do. North Korea is shooting rockets galore, Iran has not one but TWO nuclear development facilities. Ortega just made himself ruler for life in Nicaragua.

You think all of these thnings would still be happening if we had a president in office with fucking BALLS instead of this prick?

Shit, Obama cant wipe his fucking ass without running a few polls first to see which hand he should use, whether to stroke backward or forward and whether or not to he should flush the shit laden toilet paper down the toilet. Then, he'd appoint an ass wiping Czar and appear on Sunday talk shows and Oprah to talk about his big ass wiping decision making process.

Win, kill the bastards, and then leave and let those stuck in the 7th century get back their crap hole countries.

In Pak the war that we long ignored is finally on, whether it can be won is anyone's guess. If Pak is going to get better it is going to get a whole lot bloodier and unstable.

Not saying Obama is playing it right, he's not. He's being a Dem about this - he's trying to split the difference between hawks and doves and will ultimately disappoint both. W followed the conventional wisdom on Pak and perhaps didn't push as hard as he should have but I don't think there was anyone here who had that foresight or was willing to state as such. As I mentioned in Iraq I think W was more right than wrong in the end but casualties will mount (albeit Iraqis and maybe contractors) due to Dem pressure and Iraqi arrogance.

Easy translation: "I didn't send those guys there ... I ain't responsible ... Not my war."

Anyone else recall the POS "art" someone put together with pictures of the fallen troops in Iraq to construct Pres. Bush's face?

Might be time for an Obama war portrait.

Spare me.