A “Gander” at Uganda

Don't forget he no more than got in office and got the Nobel Peace Prize, just like he earned it, Bull!!!!! He hasn't ended the 2 wars we were already in like he said, but goes after Libya with our forces and now Central Africa just like we need to be there. More spending and his admin. wants to cut the defense budget. What a great leader we have.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK......lets get real we send advisors all over the world and that is exactly the mission these people are on in uganda.Yes we did the same in libya,there has been no wholesale deployment of troops.....I could make comparisons but I wont ....it would surfice to say that...it would make no difference what he did you would consider it WRONG......We have been the policman of the world way to long and it should have stoped a long ago,AND THAT MEANS BEFORE IRAQ.

The key here is escalation and there should be NONE.Contrary to what you might believe there is more to gain in uganda than there is in aphganhistan.

When we talk free and easy with our troops that doesnt hold water by any comparison.As far as the defense budget is concerned let us remember that his side was not the only ones to propose that and he has not stoped any program that was in the best intrest of the everyday soldier.AQUISTITIONS alredy in the pipl;ine have been there for years and are just about unstoppable.WE need to quite buying NEW toys because they are, and buy what we need.That too is part of the defeceit .look at the cost of one F-22 THAT WAS BUILT TO FIGHT SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.Then look at the cost overuns on the F-35 AND ASK YOURSELF WHO IS THAT BUILT TO FIGHT?? The money could be better spent within the defense department.

We are very quick to point a finger look at the whole thing.....Ill say this hommer gave us both sides of a vey important issue.The fact that he made and assumption about one side was exactly that and assumption.

Oh well for the Iraq argument. Source AP 30 min ago

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The U.S. is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline, The Associated Press has learned. The decision to pull out fully by January will effectively end more than eight years of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, despite ongoing concerns about its security forces and the potential for instability.

The decision ends months of hand-wringing by U.S. officials over whether to stick to a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline that was set in 2008 or negotiate a new security agreement to ensure that gains made and more than 4,400 American military lives lost since March 2003 do not go to waste.

In recent months, Washington has been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday that no final decision has been reached about the U.S. training relationship with the Iraqi government.

But a senior Obama administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy.

A senior U.S. military official confirmed the departure and said the withdrawal could allow future but limited U.S. military training missions in Iraq if requested.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it. Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. But others have deeply opposed any American troop presence, including Shiite militiamen who have threatened attacks on any American forces who remain.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has told U.S. military officials that he does not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers, the U.S. military official said.

A western diplomatic official in Iraq said al-Maliki told international diplomats he will not bring the immunity issue to parliament because lawmakers will not approve it.

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said discussions with Iraq about the security relationship between the two countries next year were ongoing.

Pentagon press secretary George Little said the U.S. remains "committed to keeping our agreement with the Iraqi government to remove all of our troops by the end of this year."

"At the same time we're building a comprehensive partnership with Iraq under the Strategic Framework Agreement including a robust security relationship, and discussions with the Iraqis about the nature of that relationship are ongoing," Little said.

The Strategic Framework Agreement allows for other forms of military cooperation besides U.S. troops on the ground. Signed at the same time as the security accord mandating the departure deadlines, it provides outlines for the U.S.-Iraqi relationship in such areas as economic, cultural and security cooperation.

Iraqi lawmakers excel at last-minute agreements. But with little wiggle room on the immunity issue and the U.S. military needing to move equipment out as soon as possible, a last-minute change between now and December 31 seems almost out of the question.

Regardless of whether U.S. troops are here or not, there will be a massive American diplomatic presence.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, and the State Department will have offices in Basra, Irbil and Kirkuk as well as other locations around the country where contractors will train Iraqi forces on U.S. military equipment they're purchasing.

About 5,000 security contractors and personnel will be tasked with helping protect American diplomats and facilities around the country, the State Department has said.

The U.S. Embassy will still have a handful of U.S. Marines for protection and 157 U.S. military personnel in charge of facilitating weapons sales to Iraq. Those are standard functions at most American embassies around the world and would be considered part of the regular embassy staff.

When the 2008 agreement requiring all U.S. forces leave Iraq was passed, many U.S. officials assumed it would inevitably be renegotiated so that American forces could stay longer.

The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing.

The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker.

Iraqis are still angry over incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or Haditha, when U.S. troops killed Iraqi civilians in Anbar province, and want American troops subject to Iraqi law.

American commanders don't want to risk having their forces end up in an Iraqi courtroom if they're forced to defend themselves in a still-hostile environment.

It is highly unlikely that Iraqi lawmakers would have the time to approve a U.S. troop deal even if they wanted to. The parliament is in recess on its Hajj break until Nov. 20, leaving just a few weeks for legislative action before the end of year deadline.

Going down to zero by the end of this year would allow both al-Maliki and President Barack Obama to claim victory. Obama will have fulfilled a key campaign promise to end the war and al-Maliki will have ended the American presence in Iraq and restored Iraqi sovereignty.

The Iraqi prime minister was also under intense pressure from his anti-American allies, the Sadrists, to reject any American military presence.

An advisor close to al-Maliki said the Americans suggested during negotiations that if no deal is reached in time, U.S. troops could be stationed in Kuwait.

With the U.S. military presence in Iraq currently at about 41,000 and heading down to zero, almost all of those forces will be flowing out of Iraq into Kuwait and then home or other locations.

A western expert in Iraq said it is conceivable that if the Iraqi government asks early next year for U.S. troops to return, there will be forces still in Kuwait able to come back and do the job.

But he stressed that the core problems still remain on the Iraqi side about what types of legal immunity to give the American troops and whether parliament can pass it.

Speaking of Charities I think this one stinks

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/politics/03jindal.html?pagewanted=all

No kidding!

Are we smarter than our parents and grandparents? Maybe.....but we are not running this country. It is in the hands of an out of control, completely insane bunch of self-serving morons.....Jesus wept..........

Borders Language Culture

Here's a little tune for you to sing

We are traveling in the footsteps

Of those who've gone before

But we'll all be reunited (but if we stand reunited)

On a new and sunlit shore (then a new world is in store)

Oh when the Republicans come marching in

When the Republicans come marching in

Oh lord I want to be in that number

When the Republicans come marching in

And when the sun refuse (begins) to shine

And when the sun refuse (begins) to shine

Oh lord I want to be in that number

When the Republicans come marching in

My biggest question about foriegn aid is what countries should we be giving these millions of our dollars to? We give a LOT of countries aid and they turn it against us! They openly protest us with signs telling how awful we are, burn our flags, and burn our leaders in effigy. AND we still keep sending the cash. AND it's not just the Dems., but all of 'em in Washington. Dems, Reps, Libertarians, and Independents. How much longer can we afford to give to our allies, the ones that stand with us? We're broke! And yet we keep sending the 'cash' to the 'good ones'; but we don't stop there. We keep sending it to the 'bad ones'. A lot of the countries that we send aid to would rather 'nuke' us than help us.

Well I can think of one charity that received over a half billion dollars of the taxpayer money.

And campaign funds were tendered as well as unlimited visits to the White House.

We won't see that money ever again, and it didn't benefit a bunch of under-privilged children either.

So I think that is the stinkiest one of all. Expecially if you took into account that the Jobs Act could have been paid for instead of favoring one company who went belly-up

Sorry, I was not quite correct on the charitible donation made by the taxpayers. half-trillion dollars.

Think of how that could have benefited infra-structure jobs and schools.

JYD's got a grip on what it means to be The Leader of The Free World.

YOU NEED TO STOP......AGAIN WE GET TO PAINTING GROUPS WITH A BROAD BRUSH........THE RIGHT HAS AS MANY traitores,as many thiefes as many name callers and as many hypocrites and bigots those types of people are not exclusive to the left.And we dont all support everything that this president or any other does.president Reagan was no saint.yOU CAN THROW ALL THE STONES YOU WANT you have your own crosses to bear.....I do not understand why the right feels they are the only ones with answers if you had them why hasnt your newly elected marjority put out the jobs they said they would....not one piece of legislation concerning jobs,abortion...yes enviroment ...yes jobs ....no.STOP IT get to the fact that your ONLY goal is the white house and that is ok but how many people are you going to destroy on the way there??????????? HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT???????????

I HOPE you didnt take my comment personal. I might have got carried away with the verbage.

Sorry the over reg argument doesnt wash..Small business when asked only talk of the lack of accesabilty to capital.They dont even get into taxes,which are lower than they have ever been. I dont feel that peoples lives should be sacrificed to make a dollar. I DONT FEEL THAT needs TO HAPPEN.CLINTON ,NIXON BAD ANOLOGY....CLINTOM LIED ABOUT SEX.....NIXON LIED ABOUT FELONY BUGLARY I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE,PERSONALLY IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE A LIE IS A LIE.

FAST and furious please dont forget these operations have been going on for 10 yrs and as they invesitgate I would bet the noise will get softer or some people out of the last adminisration are going to get thrown in the pot.

Others here have said that some on the left need to go.There has Not been anything different for this administration.They have been under a microscope from day one.I will say it again they have made there mistakes and they take there lumps.The problem I have is this blind fervor to demegoge at every turn.The turning of every move into something it's not.He did not set the table for what has happened, believe it or not he is trying to stop it,he may not be going about it the best way but he is trying.

BUSH was not all wrong he too had faults but credit needs to be looked at with fairness not tinted glasses.REMEMBER THERE WERE NO BLOCK 100% VOTES DONE TO BUSH,This senate set a record for filibusters.I will not defend this administration anymore than any other.But you cant put up walls and expect results.

THEY( THE HOUSE) need to get on with creating jobs not playing to the fan base at the exspense of there countrymen.DONT know why you threw ACORN in there but voter fraud has consistently been 1% of our elections since the beginning of time no matter what election so why is it a thing now?? I think the attempt to disenfranchise large voting blocks as more of a threat.That will backfire and I will bet on it. well I hope that clarifys some things.Your incumbent vote is a good one,we shall see..........latter

I think that Anderson Cooper did a terrible job as monitor. He seemed to instigate things and step back to let the fur fly.

Cain did not do as well as I had hoped. But the bullseye was on him from the get go. Whether he gets the nomination or not, his plain speaking has been a refreshing change.

all of them from now on need to address the problems at hand and not take chunks out of each other. If they can present the example of common ground, I think that people will be more assured that they can deal with two parties and reaching across the aisle.

Perry was rude and quite frankly, he had an opportunity to repudiate the smear at Rommney. Whether anyone agrees with their personal beliefs or not, it should not be used as a weapon. Very cheap shots.

Also, because of Anderson's poor monitoring skills most of the people did not get their questions answered, nor did some of the candidates get to have their turn at a closing remarks.

They need to narrow the debates down a little. And I want some more natural speaking instead of speaking points.

I too thought Anderson did a poor job interviewing. I think he didn't know what to do when Perry and Romney got into the heated argument. But that argument brought out doubt about Romeney!

I didn't care for Santorum although I think he did pretty good.

Perry I will go along with KHGal he was rude and he got boooooooooooooooooo

I still like Ron Paul but I know he won't make it.

Newt I love his personality and he is a great speaker and funny, but I know he won't make it.

Cain well all I can say is he is another great speaker but he won't make it.

Bachman Thank Goodness she did't bring up how many kids she has and how many foster kids she had..I think this was the first debate where she didn't mention the number of kids she has or had.....In my opinion she didn't do very well!

Romney I think he held his ground. He's been taking a beating lately with the talk about his religion and last night immigration !

MsM

See we agree on some things. I was very disappointed in the handling of the entire debate, I felt that it was deliberate on Anderson's part.

I thought that the questions being offered were very good.

Someone needs to fire Michelle's hair dresser.

What I would like to see is another round table debate where everyone has to rub elbows with each other.

Perry should not be invited unless they get a high chair for him.