Fred Thompson: The Afghan War "Has Been Lost"

Ouch. The trouble with this sort of statement -- even though I agree with it -- is that it's hard for even a hack like me to explain why this statement is unobjectionable while Dingy Harry's "The war is lost" statement is noxious.

And yet: It is. Thompson is saying this to spur President Present into action, while Dingy Harry was urging only defeat.

"It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost," Thompson said on his radio show today. "I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what's necessary to win it. His heart's not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.
"Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case," Thompson said.

I can see the spin: Even conservatives like Fred Thompson say the war is lost, so Obama of course should surrender.

Posted by: Ace at 02:48 PM

Comments

1 Bring these troops home so they can defend us. Let Afghan rot. If only Bush hadn't ignored Afghanistan this might have been avoided but, alas.

Posted by: LGF Fan at November 19, 2009 02:52 PM (SqAkN)

2 I got no problem with this.
If your not going to fight to win, don't fight.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at November 19, 2009 02:52 PM (SVIJA)

3
I think that's the point, Ace.

Obama is playing chicken with the American people to see who blinks first. He'll do nothing while more bad news keeps pouring in from Afghanistan and wait for us to finally say screw it, let's bug out.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 02:53 PM (jVldi)

4 Let me tell you how to win this thing.

Posted by: zombie Curtis Lemay at November 19, 2009 02:53 PM (4Kl5M)

5 They can have NYC. I never liked the Jets, Giants, Yankees, and Rangers any way.

Can we shoot at Al Q and the Taliban over the river from Jersey? Maybe 105 howitzers or 81 mortars?

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 02:54 PM (pU4D7)

Absol-friggin-lutely.

Win it or turn tail, don't leave them hanging out to dry.

Posted by: Rogue at November 19, 2009 02:54 PM (+Ec6O)

7
See? It's already working.

Plus, now that Obama is now a deficit hawk, he can drop subtle hints of how much staying in Afghanistan is costing us.

Obama will win this battle. The U.S. will withdraw from Afghanistan by next August.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 02:55 PM (jVldi)

Reminder to all who believe withdrawal is a good thing: How'd Afghanistan do the last time the U.S. wasn't there?

While I agree with Fred! in his assessment of the President's mindset, we (and the world) will reap a destructive, perhaps apocalyptic, whirlwind if we do not win.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 02:56 PM (B+qrE)

Bring our soldiers home!

Obama thinks of them as a 'photo op'

Posted by: lonestar at November 19, 2009 02:57 PM (CrJQs)

10 #4 zombie Curtis Lemay Nuke Mecca if they want to keep fighting us normal people?

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 02:57 PM (pU4D7)

11 Actually, I think its interesting to read the whole quote. Senator Thompson makes it clear why he says the war is lost. It's not because of something inherent in fighting over there. Rather, it is a lack of will demonstrated by the President of the United States. That, anyone, I believe, could discern just by watching how he has avoided making any decision about what to do about Afghanistan.

Its not a statement saying that our troops can't win. It's not a statement sayign that the Karzai regime is inherently incapable of providing what is needed to create the possibility of a peaceful Afghanistan (or at least as peaceful as Afghanistan has been historically pre-1979). The statement quoted above is what is wrong with our system, namely that the person who is in charge, ultimately, of fighting the war, lacks the will to prosecute the war.

Posted by: Bill at November 19, 2009 02:58 PM (mUl8k)

12
Think about it, though.

2010 is gonna be one hell of a tough year for spinning for Obama and the Democrats. Not only is the recession going to deepen, but Obama will be simultaneously prosecuting KSM and CIA agents while surrendering in Afghanistan to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 02:58 PM (jVldi)

13 Withdrawing in shame would be disasterous.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 02:58 PM (SqAkN)

Let the mass slaughter of all non Taliban Afgans begin.

Just another genecide caused by the malfeasance of the left.

Posted by: Doowleb at November 19, 2009 02:59 PM (r+Gn+)

15 The difference is that Harry said we've lost because he wanted to stop trying. Fred said we've lost because we *have* stopped trying.

Posted by: Joanna at November 19, 2009 03:00 PM (gJQTg)

16 Think of the fighting man in Afghanistan who sees this headline. Fred's got the right core ideas but it's his boneheaded, thoughtless ways of presenting himself like this that makes me steer clear of him.

Posted by: Crusty at November 19, 2009 03:00 PM (GvSpB)

17
Lest we forget, Obama had a plan ready to go in January left for him by Bush.

If Obama acted in February, Afghanistan would look a lot better than it does now.

Failure in Afghanistan is on Obama.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 03:01 PM (jVldi)

18 Left wingers actually HATE the military. So it does not matter to him how many soldiers get killed or maimed.

It is far better for Jihadist to kill Americans then Leftist to bomb the Pentagon again

Jane Fonda must be happy!.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 03:02 PM (pU4D7)

19 I have never seen people on here agree with one of my sockpuppets before. That was wierd.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 03:02 PM (SqAkN)

20 I think this is a bad statement with a good meaning. My opinion of what he should have said is, "There is no objective for our men to win in Afghanistan, therefore, give them one and give them the resouces to achieve it, or bring home the troops."

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 03:02 PM (e8YaH)

21 Think of the fighting man in Afghanistan who sees this headline.

Almost everyone over there knows who is really looking out for them. And unfortunately as of late, a lot of them agree with Teh Fred's sentiment.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at November 19, 2009 03:03 PM (SVIJA)

22 Fred's statement is not objectionable, while Reid's is, because they differ on causation. Reid's "the war is lost" statement was based on the lie that the enemy was defeating us. Fred's is based on the statement - which he explicitly makes - that the wanker in the White House who is supposed to be in charge of prosecuting the war is failing to do so. He is blunt: to win the war, the American people have to be behind it and willing to pay the priced needed to win; they are not because the Lawn-Jockey-In-Chief is not supporting the effort, and not making any effort to sell the war to the citizenry. If Obama is in charge, he is saying, then the war is lost. Quod erat demonstrandum.*

I remain convinced we could win this war faster than you could say "Semper Fi," if only we had a leader willing to make it happen. Which we don't.

* Latin for "thanks a buttload, 52-percenters."

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 19, 2009 03:03 PM (Jdtsu)

23 Afghanistan, in the hands of Democrats, has been lost.

Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 03:04 PM (MMC8r)

24 If zero had even one nad that M did not have in a vise he might actually be able to man up.

Posted by: mbruce at November 19, 2009 03:05 PM (t/GDA)

25 Ouch. The trouble with this sort of statement -- even though I agree with it -- is that it's hard for even a hack like me to explain why this statement is unobjectionable while Dingy Harry's "The war is lost" statement is noxious.

The difference between this statement and Reid's is that Reid was trying to describe a fact on the ground, which no adminstration position could change, while Fred! is describing a natural result of the administration's position.

For what it's worth, The Precedent is very intentionally trying to throw the Afghan war, as the dithering has been his strategy from the very start.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 03:06 PM (A46hP)

26 Fred presented it correctly, it needs a shocking lead to get press. Don't worry about the men in the A'stan, they are very well informed. You gotta watch the press cycles (esp on Thursday as they prep the weekend coverages and talkshow billets). Obama thought he would get a few more news cycles out of the KSM to NYC mess, well, it did knock Sarah's book off of the front page.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 03:06 PM (tJF9l)

27 The trouble with this sort of statement -- even though I agree with it -- is that it's hard for even a hack like me to explain why this statement is unobjectionable while Dingy Harry's "The war is lost" statement is noxious.

Here's the difference: Reid loudly proclaimed that the Iraq war was "lost" scarcely days after President Bush implemented the surge that later proved to be successful. Fred's statement, on the other hand, comes after months of Obama sitting around with his thumb up his butt, doing nothing except basking in the glow of his own awesomeness while watching HBO documentaries about himself.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 19, 2009 03:06 PM (hoowK)

28 "has been lost"

Obama lost the war

Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 03:07 PM (+sBB4)

He attacks Obama like he campaigned. Loser.

Posted by: Pelvis at November 19, 2009 03:07 PM (LlaBi)

30 Our dear reader is much more interested in restructuring America into his very own personal tin pot two bit dictatorship than he is doing anything else.

Posted by: bill-tb at November 19, 2009 03:07 PM (iiiMw)

31 Kind of reminds me of a previous conflict in ways.

Posted by: Javems at November 19, 2009 03:09 PM (hq71Y)

32 This imminent failure is not a reflection on Obama's (pbuh) intestinal fortitude. This is the desired result.

Barack Obama does not seek to keep his country at the apex; he seeks to drag America into the trash heap of history, although he is a Stalinist, not a Trotskyite.

Posted by: NJConservative at November 19, 2009 03:09 PM (/Ywwg)

33 "The insurgent leader...does not attempt to deceive us. He affords no excuse to deceive ourselves. He can not voluntarily accept the Union; we can not voluntarily yield it. Between him and us the issue is distinct, simple, and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war and decided by victory."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 6, 1864

Abraham Lincoln knew better than most that what is most needed in a Commander-in-Chief is resolve. That the time for debates and agonizing and triangulation is before the war begins; that once the war is underway, the only moral course is to fight to win.

You never heard Lincoln talk of "exit strategies" and "off ramps" and "staged withdrawals". Granted his situation was different; but he had a terrible, iron-hard will where it mattered most: to see the war through to victory. He did his best to avoid war, but once it was fairly begun he resolved to win it no matter what it took. And what it took was the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians, of a ruined economy and a ravaged South. Lincoln could do that because he possessed a terrifying morality: a morality that could send a pink-cheeked boy just off the farm to a certain death, knowing that such an action was the only way to save the Union.

Our enemies have taken Obama's measure, as they did Jimmy Carter before him. Obama does not have the belly to fight. He knows in his mind that the fight is necessary, but his spirit quails at the cost. And without his will as CiC to drive the effort, it cannot succeed. The soldiers look to the generals, and the generals look to him...but see only fecklessness, hesitation, and indecision.

Posted by: Monty at November 19, 2009 03:09 PM (4Pleu)

34 How about, "Obama has lost Afghanistan"?

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 03:10 PM (e8YaH)

35 Reid was wishing, Fred's lamenting.

Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 03:10 PM (MMC8r)

Ben Smith is such a dick:

Thompson's words seem to lay the groundwork for Republican opposition to further American engagement in Afghanistan, cast here as halfhearted.

No, dick, it means Republicans want MUCH further engagement. But if Obama won't do that, then cut losses now.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 19, 2009 03:11 PM (ujg0T)

37 I hope Afghanistan fails. But Pakistan would have been worse.

Posted by: oblig. hides the premise at November 19, 2009 03:11 PM (aK/MY)

Afghanistan?

Sorry.

Never heard of it.

Posted by: B. Obamavich, Chairman - Poliburo, Central Committee at November 19, 2009 03:11 PM (s2bW4)

39 Fred, wake up from your nap and let me help you:

Obama screwed up the Afghan elections.

Obama is losing the war.

Obama is dithering on troops.

Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 03:12 PM (+sBB4)

40 Monty you should have your own blog.

Posted by: Jewells at November 19, 2009 03:12 PM (l/N7H)

41
yeah, according to Ben Smith, of the Shitico, Fred Thompson is now the de-facto leader of the Republicans in Congress.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 03:12 PM (jVldi)

"has been lost"

Obama lost is losing the war.

Words matter.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 19, 2009 03:13 PM (ujg0T)

yeah, according to Ben Smith, of the Shitico, Fred Thompson is now the de-facto leader of the Republicans in Congress.

The Politico either (1) slants leftward or (2) treats issues like they are horse races, but Ben Smith is in a special class of leftist dickwad.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 19, 2009 03:14 PM (ujg0T)

44 An unfortunate choice of words by Fred.

Posted by: Jewells at November 19, 2009 03:16 PM (l/N7H)

45 Here's the difference: Reid loudly proclaimed that the Iraq war was "lost" scarcely days after President Bush implemented the surge that later proved to be successful. Fred's statement, on the other hand, comes after months of Obama sitting around with his thumb up his butt, doing nothing except basking in the glow of his own awesomeness while watching HBO documentaries about himself.

No you don't get it. Here's the difference. When Reid said it, it was all over media with pictures of body bags explosions, and an Iraq in civil war meme.

When Fred's comment get's aired it will be right after they air commentary by Hannity, Levine, Limbaugh, and Beck, decrying Reid for facilitating loss, and causing US troops to get killed by emboldening the enemy. Just to make the point of hypocrisy clear; it will be followed by further opinion of panel experts reaffirming what Limbaugh et al said and finally floating the meme the Republican politics and hate of the administration is going to cost US soldiers their lives, all in the name of the petty partisan politics that America "hates". THATS THE DIFFERENCE.

Yeah thanks Fred, I get it, I sympathize, but your not HELPING anything here.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 19, 2009 03:16 PM (0q2P7)

46 Leave my fellow jihadi alone

Posted by: Spencer Abraham at November 19, 2009 03:17 PM (vfQBi)

47 Its not "lost" per se. What may be lost are notions of nation building, elections, women's rights, blah, blah, etc, etc.

If you recalibrate expectations and get rid of all that twaddle that flies like a lead balloon in Afghanistan, and focus on defanging the Taliban and AQ, and ignore the political shit in Kabul, then you've got something that is very attainable.

Can/will the Obamunists take that approach? Of course not.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 03:18 PM (eESb/)

48 Ben Smith is such a dick:
Thompson's words seem to lay the groundwork for Republican opposition to further American engagement in Afghanistan, cast here as halfhearted.
No, dick, it means Republicans want MUCH further engagement. But if Obama won't do that, then cut losses now.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 19, 2009 03:11 PM (ujg0T)

Well put - though I am still not for pulling out of Afghanistan until Iran and Pakistan nuke issues have been dealt with. The Precedent cannot remain in office too much longer (our nation just won't survive it) and our presence in Afghanistan is more important over the longer term, for more than just Afghanistan.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 03:19 PM (A46hP)

49 You know, maybe i'm nuts, but at this point I hope the military just goes ahead and wins this thing on their terms, then dare obama to do something about it.

Posted by: Berserker at November 19, 2009 03:19 PM (gWHrG)

50 Reid was the sitting Senate Majority leader when he asked for defeat; that matters. Forget the very different contexts of what the two men said; Thompson is hosting a radio talk show, Reid was an elected official of considerable importance. Thompson wants to win the war in Afghanistan; Reid very much wanted US defeat in Iraq.

Posted by: UGAdawg at November 19, 2009 03:22 PM (ev309)

You know, maybe i'm nuts, but at this point I hope the military just goes ahead and wins this thing on their terms, then dare obama to do something about it.

I like your style.

Posted by: Zombie Douglas MacArthur at November 19, 2009 03:23 PM (ujg0T)

Leave Barry alone. He said a couple of weeks ago that he's make a decision in a couple of weeks. And a couple of weeks before that he said he make a decision in a couple of weeks. And a couple of weeks before that he said he make a decision in a couple of weeks. He's been very consistant with making that decision in a couple of weeks over the last few months. Now he'll do it after Thanksgiving. Can't he just finish his turkey?

Posted by: TheQuietman at November 19, 2009 03:25 PM (1Jaio)

53 When the Taliban accept Maobama's offer, you'll be wishing he was still dithering.

Posted by: Spencer Abraham at November 19, 2009 03:26 PM (vfQBi)

Thanks Obama you fucktard

Posted by: Todd at November 19, 2009 03:29 PM (LLOGQ)

55 "- is that it's hard for even a hack like me to explain why this statement is unobjectionable while Dingy Harry's "The war is lost" statement is noxious." Ace

Okay Ace- it's like this. Dirty Harry's crack came when we were actually TRYING TO WIN- with an engaged POTUS.
NOW- our POTUS is not trying to win. He is trying to 'bleed' the conflict until America gets tired of our soldiers dying for nothing. Our POTUS doesn't even have the stones to end it- Fred does.

Posted by: ExTex at November 19, 2009 03:30 PM (t6yvu)

56
As much as I like Fred, he should not have used the passive voice. Instead of "the war has been lost," he should have said, "Obama lost the war." Clear, simple, factual statements are the best way to cut through the Obullshit.

Posted by: Brown Line at November 19, 2009 03:31 PM (VrNoa)

52 / Quietman:

Manyana: It doesn't mean tommorow, it just means not today

Posted by: B. Obamavich, Chairman - Poliburo, Central Committee at November 19, 2009 03:31 PM (s2bW4)

58 What pisses me off is this fuckwad was playing Mr tough guy during the debates, Oh he was gonna go catch binladen with his bare hands, this is the real war we should have kept an eye on, we shouldn't be muddling blah blah blah *burp* fart wheeze and whatever fucking else fell out of his talking ass.

The dude is empty suit and way over his fucking head.

Posted by: Berserker at November 19, 2009 03:31 PM (gWHrG)

59 Regretably, Fred is correct. Obama does not have the will to win, therefore the war is lost. At this point, we may as well withdraw. Better for everyone if we at least do not pretend to be doing something we do not in fact have the will to do. As long as the 52% stand with Obama, the "terrorism is just a crime, nothing to worry about" approach will prevail. So, in a nutshell, the war on terror is lost. May as well admit it and start making plans for what to do after Iranian supplied nukes allow al-qaida to destroy NY, San Francisco, DC, Houston, and maybe half a dozen other cities. MAYBE, after we lose a few cities, all the people in America will take Islamic terrorism seriously, but I doubt it.

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at November 19, 2009 03:31 PM (7HL8W)

60 You know, maybe i'm nuts, but at this point I hope the military just goes ahead and wins this thing on their terms, then dare obama to do something about it.

More than likely the commanders on the ground will turtle up and quit sending out patrols. Keep the guys on base until the word comes down to move them back home.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at November 19, 2009 03:31 PM (SVIJA)

61 While I appreciate Fred's intention, I think it would have been much better for him to more accurately describe the situation. He should have just stated the simple, and obvious, fact that The Precedent is intentionally trying to lose the war for us, and should be brought up on charges for such treason.

It is getting to be time that people need to publicly talk about how The Precedent is working against American interests and that he needs to be held to account, at some point. And they should throw in the fact that The Precedent is as stupid as all get-out, too.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 03:32 PM (A46hP)

62 Obama, sadly, is just continuing the poor leadership that George W. Bush started in Afghanistan. What is the objective of the war? Is it annhilation of the Taliban? The abolition of Al Qaeda? The rebuidling of Afghanistan into a modern 21st-century nation? What? Whatever tactical objectives military commanders are given, there must be a strategic directive -- that's what we mean by "winning the war". If we fail to achieve the strategic objective (or fail to have one at all) then the war is lost by definition.

At least W. seemed to recognize that Afghanistan was a multi-decade project -- something that Americans don't like to hear. We don't like long wars; five years is about our limit. It's not a question of dedication or martial prowess; it's mainly that we think like civilians rather than combatants. It's a good thing, usually, to behave in that way. We are not a militaristic people, but a mercantilist one. War is bad for business. Unfortunately, Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are part of an older world, a world outside the Westphalian city-state fold. To "win" a war like this requires long time-horizons (measured in decades, not years) and a hard heart -- it requires doing things that America may not have the belly to do. (Russia, in contrast, failed not through a weakness of will but through sheer martial incompetence. Marry Russian ideology to American skill at arms and you'd pacify Afghanistan in a month...or leave it a barren field of smoldering corpses. To the Russians, either way is good.)

Posted by: Monty at November 19, 2009 03:32 PM (4Pleu)

63 Thompson should keep comments like that inside the walls.
They don't need to be public. I don't like it when Democrats like Kerry, Reid, Pelosi et al say bullshit like this-and when Republicans do it I don't like it any better.

There are people fighting, and dying out there. Give them moral support, and behind closed doors say wars are lost. complain behind closed doors, and quietly get them what they need to win-or get the heck out.

Posted by: jeff at November 19, 2009 03:34 PM (Sx9Qk)

64 I think complete withdrawal is a better option than a micro-managed war given just enough resources to show 51% of the public that Obama is 'tough". If teh Fred's statement causes Obama to get behind winning the war, great. If not, hopefully it at least causes Obama to rethink his dithering.

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 03:38 PM (n1uMU)

65 Very stupid phrasing by Thompson. He isn't actually saying the war is lost. He is saying that victory requires a president who wants to win, and so the war WILL be lost, since we don't have such a president. Will be lost and lost are very different things, and throwing this kind of stupid statement out to be misused by the opposition is very careless. Again, Thompson fails to impress. If only he really wanted to win, he could have gotten the nomination, but like Obama in Afghanistan, he lacked the will. If he can't stop saying stupid things now he ought to just shut up.

Posted by: Alec Rawls at November 19, 2009 03:40 PM (c+6of)

I had thought this was the Real "good and Just war",, What are they doing here? I had thought what had been said initially of why Taliban- Al Qaida had become powerful there was a vacuum that had been left after Russia . So The administration and their cronies that argued this point? is no longer interested?

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 03:40 PM (GkYyh)

67 Republicans need to learn that every word matters. Never say anything the liberal Pravda can spin. Every phrase can be a soundbite.

Fred should have said "Obama is losing Afghanistan." And he should keep saying it at every opportunity -- until O! either mans up and works for victory, or admits he got elected President to lead America into defeat.

Posted by: Trimegistus at November 19, 2009 03:41 PM (6yEzu)

68 are* no longer interested

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 03:44 PM (GkYyh)

69 Harry Reid said our enemies had won.

Fred Thompson says our Commander-in-Chief has abdicated, or at worst, surrendered, and is letting our enemies win.

Posted by: stuiec at November 19, 2009 03:46 PM (Ate22)

70 If he had said "Obama is losing Afghanistan" it would have gotten no attention. Zero. At least this way there's some attention drawn to the fact that Obama is screwing things up.

Posted by: grognard at November 19, 2009 03:49 PM (v0kvW)

71 Zombie Curtis LeMay is a pansie. He has no idea how to win a real war on the ground. Hearts and minds? I got your hearts and minds right here, buddy, and my dogs think they're pretty tasty.

Posted by: Zombie William T. Sherman at November 19, 2009 03:51 PM (T1boi)

Can we shoot at Al Q and the Taliban over the river from Jersey? Maybe 105 howitzers or 81 mortars? -

Meh, I served on 105'^s(the 10deuce version) and 155'^s. Let's go with the baby with the big silver tube. Or maybe even 8" self propelled (I heard those are really something). Or just give 'em new york, build a wall around the place and fill it with water. Imagine the fishing in a couple three years.

Posted by: teej at November 19, 2009 03:51 PM (QdUKm)

...it's hard for even a hack like me to explain why this statement is unobjectionable while Dingy Harry's "The war is lost" statement is noxious.

Difference: Dingy Harry wanted the U.S. to fail.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at November 19, 2009 03:53 PM (WGcw3)

74 Barry has more important things to worry about right now. Like the Eggo shortage.

Posted by: TheQuietman at November 19, 2009 03:54 PM (1Jaio)

75 Barack is racking up some really big wins. The 787B stimulus, jobs saved or created, Afghanistan. Just think, he's just getting warmed up.

Posted by: Booter at November 19, 2009 03:57 PM (eimUK)

Our absence or severe reduction in troops will send the mid-east into an absolute tailspin w/no hope for recovery, I agree w/progress o peace...Afghan-ee-ston is just one part of the puzzle...Like it or not BO, WE are the worlds police force WE are exceptional. BO is sending the world into the abyss, hows that liberal compassion & smart diplomacy workin out for the 52-ers now?

Posted by: dananjcon at November 19, 2009 04:03 PM (pr+up)

77 Why don't Obama and Holder just have all the Taliban arrested? They are guilty. And WHEN they are prosecuted in our criminal court system, and WHEN they are convicted and WHEN they are put to death, the war will be one.

you know, if that stuff happens.

Obama's an idiot.

Posted by: alppuccino at November 19, 2009 04:05 PM (XOZ0o)

74 Barry has more important things to worry about right now. Like the Eggo shortage.

As a fat guy, this is very distressing, If the heinekin brewery blows up next..you may never see me on this post again.

Posted by: dananjcon at November 19, 2009 04:06 PM (pr+up)

79 Well, for shit, I would hate to be boots on the ground right now. At leaat when I was in, we had a president with balls, I sure do miss Ronald Reagan

Posted by: Todd at November 19, 2009 04:06 PM (LLOGQ)

80 Re#63 jeff

"There are people fighting, and dying out there. Give them moral support, and behind closed doors say wars are lost. complain behind closed doors, and quietly get them what they need to win-or get the heck out."

The truth should never be shrouded.
Fred says that The One lacks the will to win. He's just being polite. The One wants to lose this war and if he had gotten his healthcare bill through already, he would be declaring his intention to withdraw right now. But he needs more time.
Fred's statement challenges BO and his supporters to agree or disagree. Of course, they'd rather do neither at this time as doing either would hurt him now or hurt him later.
Which is Fred's point.

Posted by: RayJ at November 19, 2009 04:11 PM (YcjCJ)

"I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what's necessary to win it. His heart's not in it, and never has been

Fred qualified his statement here succinctly...its the parrot press that will butcher the shit out of his words. Still like the cut of Fred's jib too bad he couldn't muster-up the energy to run a decent campaign.

Eh... his wife is milfy, what does he care.

Posted by: dananjcon at November 19, 2009 04:14 PM (pr+up)

82 With Holder being KSM and crew to the states and handing them "our" rights, it is obvious that Obama intends to treat the war as a reactionary criminal model.

Fred is right and he is saying what we are all thinking.There is no confidence in our Commander and Chief, it is his responsibility to set forth a plan and with KSM in New York, that plan is becoming crystal clear.

Obama has the ability to lose the war and we cannot stop him.

Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack and it would take dedication from the top down to pull off a strategy that could leave the place in a better light than what it has been.When I say better light, I mean that the place would never be anywhere near what we would like to have it be but at the same time, it would not be the next stronghold for the second generation Taliban forces that are sure to move in.

Obama can lose the war in Afghanistan if he chooses, pull out the troops and make the left, the Taliban and AQ some very happy campers but the war will be back within our borders in no time flat, it isn't over by a long shot.

At this point, with terrorist/enemy combatants sitting in New York awaiting their trials, I have to say that Fred is right....DO....NOT....LOSE.....ONE....MORE....TROOP.....For Obama.
We very well may need these troops back home to protect us against all enemies both foreign and domestic the way this Country is sliding down the slope of history.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 04:15 PM (aZn+0)

83 Put me in the camp that believes Fred Thompson badly phrased his words and opened us up to the comparison ace indicated. For good or bad, during a fight I have always taken the black knight approach or if you prefer, the Cool Hand Luke approach. You can criticize how we are prosecuting the war but never,ever declare you have lost while you're still fighting.

Posted by: polynikes at November 19, 2009 04:21 PM (m2CN7)

84 It is O's intention that the public turn against the war, so that he can take no blame. Meanwhile soldiers die.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 19, 2009 04:21 PM (DIYmd)

Obama has the ability to lose the war

Drider at November 19, 2009 04:15 PM (aZn+0)

Even as you defend the Fred's statement you yourself say what Fred should have said.

Posted by: polynikes at November 19, 2009 04:23 PM (m2CN7)

86 Put me in the camp that believes Fred Thompson badly phrased his words and opened us up to the comparison ace indicated. For good or bad, during a fight I have always taken the black knight approach or if you prefer, the Cool Hand Luke approach. You can criticize how we are prosecuting the war but never,ever declare you have lost while you're still fighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Polynikes, I would agree wholeheartedly with you but the CnC finally after weeks of balking on how to carry on this engagement showed his hand when his AG brought KSM to New York to for Federal prosecution.
It is not blowing it out of proportion in the least the meaning.
Obama does not intend but he "IS" now firmly commited to using our troops as some kind of worldwide police force to bring terrorists home to stand trial with American rights.......How can we even do that?
How can we do that without changing "our rights", it's impossible.

It is time, it is the first time in my life where the term "No confidence in the CnC" actually lives up to the definition.The time for cool handness is over, at this moment our troops are dying for a commander with no spine, who cannot give two hoots for anything that is not him.

Of course, you can answer the question that L. Grahm put to Holder on what we would do if we captured OBL tomorrow, Holder didn't know, Leahy said we had no use of interrogating him if we did catch him, how much more proof do we need that our current leaders don't have a clue and it is our troops that are dying for it or should I say them (the leaders) because there is no coherent strategy to go by, possibly on purpose.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 04:40 PM (aZn+0)

87 Obama has the ability to lose the war

Drider at November 19, 2009 04:15 PM (aZn+0)

Even as you defend the Fred's statement you yourself say what Fred should have said.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Your right, point well taken.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 04:41 PM (aZn+0)

88 Afghanistan may well be unwinnable. But Bush had no choice but to go in. Now that we're in, and have bungled it to the point of losing, allowing the Taliban to come back and threaten Pakistan, pulling out could be disastrous. Showing weakness in this region now could start a chain of events that lead to World War III.

Posted by: obama is a traitor at November 19, 2009 04:48 PM (Qt4Y7)

89 Well, I'm gonna stop beating a dead horse after this post, I promise.

Whereas I did agree with polynikes that Fred should maybe have phrased the statement as "Obama having the ability to lose the war".

At this point in time, with the recent development taking place in New York, I am apt to disagree, either there is confidence in our CnC or there is not.
It is clear that there is not (from my point of view).

At what point do you finally say t is over, ditch the politics and pray that people can see for themselves how this spineless administration handled our security and bring the troops back home?
At what point does it become clear that our leadership simply doesn't have our forces best interests at heart during wartime and we bring them home(notice I didn't say out of harms way due to the "inexplicable act" that took place at Fort Hood).

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 04:53 PM (aZn+0)

90 Harry Reid: We have lost the war because it is a war we cannot win no matter what.

Fred Thompson: We have lost the war because we do not care if we win, the enemy knows this, will wait us out, and thus unless we convince them that we intend to win, we have lost.

One is one of hopelessness, the other is telling a prophecy that need not come true, and is in fact being told so that it does not come true.

The blunt fact is that the last several months of deliberately holding off on a decision one way or another have most likely give the Taliban such hope that only a series of sustained attrition losses or a single sharp (and major) setback will set them (and the supporting/neutral populace) back to the psychological level they were at this spring. Right now, they have hope to live on, hope that the Americans, as all who have entered their lands do, are at that point where thoughts of going home start to become more prominent in the mind. They expect to outlast us now, as a near certainty, and deal with the environment after our withdrawal as they are able. The thoughts and fears of earlier, of wondering if they would ever again have a world without Americans in it, have certainly ended for the moment. They should be looking at least somewhat eagerly to the future for a change.

Thus, they have that hope of victory again--and all because some have decided that they needed to complete their college thesis on international affairs with real nations and real lives, and take those months to do the equivalent of the "Grand Tour" of strategy (assuming it was even done). As Napoleon realized, it is the moral force that wins you wars. It will take American blood to just get them back to the point where they were earlier--though in the act of getting them back to that point, we may crush their spirits enough to cause a complete collapse, since sometimes dreams deferred just implode. Or not. Tough to tell with such a flinty population.

Posted by: Horatius at November 19, 2009 04:53 PM (MnHFa)

Drider I understand the frustration but the way I see it is the enemy fighters aren't looking at our wonkish arguments. They will take this statement and it will provide the same aid and comfort that Reid's statement gave them. And likely even more since it comes from the 'fighting' side of the aisle.

If Fred truly believes we have lost the war, then his next step should be to advocate getting us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. If he is using it as a hammer to push Obama to do something to win , I believe he is using the wrong strategy that demoralizes our troops and emboldens our enemies further.

As I have reluctantly indicated before, we have lost less than a 1000 KIA in this eight year war. We kicked out the Taliban from power easily and killed hundreds of Taliban and Al Queda leaders. We have allowed for multiple free elections and have the Taliban and Al Queda hiding in the mountains unable to organize an attack on our homeland. Afghanistan is now becoming the flytrap for terrorists as Iraq once was so the surge of fighting is not a suprise to me. We have much more to do but we are far far from having lost this war.

Unfortunately, I agree that its possible that Obama can find a way to lose it.

Posted by: polynikes at November 19, 2009 05:10 PM (m2CN7)

We absolutely cannot afford to have Pakistan collapse, not with them holding nukes. And the only way to suppress the Taliban in Pakistan for the US is from Afganistan.

Of course if we had the guts to go in and take away the nukes then that would be one solution but that is one action that this closet moslem president will never take. But if the jihadis get a nuke I can see them dropping it into the bottom of a oil tank on an oil tanker, filling the tank with crude, and then sailing that to Houston or Rotterdam and setting it off.

Lastly the simple truth is that we can fight them over there or we will be fighting them over here.

Posted by: agesilaus at November 19, 2009 05:23 PM (eOGcs)

93 Barry's people have been wanting an excuse for a new national flag. I suggest a large WHITE one with a big ZERO in the center. Oh, make that an "O". Same difference.

Posted by: GarandFan at November 19, 2009 05:30 PM (ZQBnQ)

94 Why in hell could ol' Fred not have used the word "surrendered" instead of "lost?"

What he should have said:
"The Ditherer-in-Chief has orchestrated a de-facto surrender."

That is how one avoids parroting Senator "Ashen Piehole."

I swear, the Republicans badly need a course in public speaking, and one in rhetoric. Otherwise the teleprompter readers who run against them will own them every time.

I've heard Rudy speak his sibiances without the damned lisp,
the nervous laughter, and the stuttering.
I've heard Romney speak without the staccato monotone, without the wonkish, tall-grass, accountant-rules soporifics.
I've heard Fred speak like a man with energy and fire.
I've heard Sarah speak like a person with iron determination.

They all fail to "bring it," like allstars, when they are in public and in interviews. It's a performance, man! Play to win.

For some reason the nerves take over when speaking in public. Even ol' Huck trips over his tongue now and then. Usually spectacularly.

But these folks let the Huckster trump them continually when it comes to public speaking. If he runs again, his Bush-like, statist version of Conservatism will damage the campaigns of any challengers. Again.

Posted by: K~Bob at November 19, 2009 05:46 PM (WtrwW)

95 The libs are absolutely on board with the idea of attacking America. There is nothing they can say or do to help themselves or our country at this point.

Posted by: trentk269 at November 19, 2009 05:48 PM (xyEsR)

96 TL;DR: The ends justify the means.

Disappointed in both of you for this one, Ace.

Posted by: Your Mom at November 19, 2009 06:05 PM (GjXkv)

97 Just imagine how US credibility will skyrocket when we leave Afghanistan to the Taliban! Everyone will love us again!

Posted by: Feh at November 19, 2009 06:50 PM (Hen++)

98 I disagree that the war is lost, but I do agree that if the president continues in this manner, it will be. We can always pull it out with a better leader, but there will be a lot of suffering and poor morale, dead soldiers, and suffering Afghanis until we get there.

Posted by: Christopher taylor at November 19, 2009 07:42 PM (PQY7w)

In the Army, at least the parts of it I'm exposed to, we gave the Pres'ent the benefit of the doubt after the election. I figuered there was always the chance he would find a way to do good things.

When he initially proposed the withdrawl from Iraq, he listened to his advisors and understood that there was no way to meet his timeline. He modified his plan to fit reality.

When he canned McKiernan and put in McChrystal, it looked like maybe he was serious about Afghanistan. He said that we needed a new strategy, and that McChrystal was the man to make it.

Six months later, McChrystal had a strategy and the Pres'ent did not. He said, "We'll have to think about this." That night, he addressed a gay rights convention and said "We will end Don't Ask Don't Tell right away." No equivocation, no debate, simple decisive statement.

Now, a few months later, he says of the strategy, "We are really close to a decison. Just a few more weeks. Probably."

WTF? He hasn't dithered like this on any other issue. He hasn't spent so much time doing other things when something was pressing. I'm guessing he is deliberately stalling. How does one explain this? What would be the purpose of stalling?

He may not be trying to lose, but it sure looks that way. The future is not looking bright.

Posted by: penultimatum at November 19, 2009 10:17 PM (CIKgX)

100 Count me in the Poor phrasing Fred camp.
but not the or else bring the troops home because of whatever bunch.

"Nothing is over til We say it's over"
and
"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"
still applies no matter what our other strategies and tactics are.
The only other alternative is to leave an impassable wasteland, think Carthage with Cobalt isotopes instead of salt.

Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 10:24 PM (kPkxu)

101 Fred, get back in the diner, and shaddup!

Posted by: Embarrassed in TN at November 19, 2009 11:26 PM (UaSIe)

102 منتدى عقارات

Posted by: somah at November 20, 2009 12:41 PM (Zv8Md)

103 The "3am" wake up call.

"It didn't have to be.
It doesn't have to be.
But that's the way it is."

FACE FACTS AND ACT ACCORDINGLY IN TIMELY FASHION FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR NATION.

Fred Thompson's been on Obama's case since Obama flopped on his campaign stand to completely focus upon winning the "Afghanistan War of Necessity" and his official address to the troops pro-victory in HIS Afghanistan war of necessity subsequent to his inauguration.

It was Fred Thompson who queried whether "win" was still in Obama's vocabulary prior to Obama's "I'm not interested in victory" response.

Ever since Obama took office, Fred Thompson has been on his case to commit to victory and take McChrystal's advice, or else to decide to pull out, but NOT to leave our troops hanging with their hands tied behind their backs by politically correct rules of engagement unable to win "Obama's War of Necessity in Afghanistan."

Yesterday, Fred Thompson first made the case with Pete Hoekstra and Lindsey Graham that the Obama-Holder decision endorses terrorism against American civilians.

It is the cumulative result of Obama's tenure to date that has doomed Obama's engagement in Afghanistan to failure. Grown ups face up to the facts and deal with reality; whereas juveniles like Obama defy their shameful failures, spinning fabricated whole cloth successful achievements. To sugar coat the disastrous destruction that Obama has caused is not patriotic. At best it's politically correct empowerment for terrorism against civilians and against our troops whether abroad or at home.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 20, 2009 05:03 PM (+CLh/)

104
"Nothing is over til We say it's over"

Posted by: discount ugg boots at November 20, 2009 09:21 PM (b1hdx)

105 don't get all of the praise for Graham here. If any first year law student couldn't make Holder look stupid on this issue then they should drop out and find a calling more commensurate with their mental capacity.

Posted by: Kobe Bryant Shoes at November 20, 2009 09:23 PM (b1hdx)

106 He may not be trying to lose, but it sure looks that way. The future is not looking bright.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 20, 2009 09:25 PM (b1hdx)

107 burberry scarf | CD Keys

Posted by: jason at November 20, 2009 11:37 PM (0dxbq)

108 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 23, 2009 06:27 AM (bNNim)

109 Chipotle Mexican Grill links of london jewellery . The fast food at these casual links of london eateries feels slow, links london jewelry thanks to organic ingredients cheap links of london , custom combos, link of london and an emphasis on freshness. links of london sale Traffic is down at many locations, links of london jewelry but the company has been able to compensate by raising prices, links london Olive Garden. links of london Charms More food for less money hits the sweet spot these days, links of london Charm which makes the family-style portions at this casual Italian chain a hit with diners. links of london Necklaces Olive Garden is a division of Darden Restaurants, links london Necklace which also operates Red Lobster, links of london Bracelets Longhorn Steakhouse, links london Bracelet and a few smaller chains. links of london Sweetie Bracelets Olive Garden has been the best performer of the bunch, links london Sweetie Bracelet with same-store sales down slightly but overall sales up, links of london Friendship Bracelets thanks to about 35 new outlets that have opened over the past year links london Friendship Bracelet

Posted by: links of london at November 23, 2009 07:11 PM (amVaT)

110 Attention, class. Here's a logic question for you: If it's true that everyone loves Nightfall Ugg Boots Nightfall Ugg Boots Nightfall Ugg Boots a deal, and Black Friday offers the best deals of the year, then is it safe to assume that folks will go ugg boots on sales ugg boots on sales ugg boots on sales into a state of high-grade hysteria the day after Thanksgiving? The answer is: duh, of course. Though over a week away, Black Friday is already igniting the Search box. ugg boots shop ugg boots shop ugg boots shop Shoppers have pushed up searches on "black friday 2009" and "black friday ads" to dizzying heights. One might think that retailers would keep the deals a secret until the big day ugg mini boots ugg mini boots ugg mini boots but nothing could be further from the truth. classic cardy ugg boots classic cardy ugg boots classic cardy ugg boots

Posted by: mxc at November 23, 2009 09:26 PM (amVaT)

111 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

Posted by: reviewups at November 27, 2009 05:00 AM (xUZwC)

112

It is a great idea especially for relatively new blogs. I�d like to try this.

ugg bailey button Just got my ugg classic mini! They are absolutely beautiful, and the quality is just amazing. No wearing them in, no blisters just absolutely snug strait out of the box.

Everything dynamic and very positively!

Posted by: ugg bailey button boots at November 28, 2009 02:02 AM (e/fuI)

113 �� ahj ��

Posted by: 0 at November 29, 2009 04:35 PM (jwOUD)

114 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

Posted by: nike air max at December 01, 2009 10:01 PM (OKj2x)

Posted by: reviewups at December 02, 2009 02:33 AM (fZN4w)

116 Everything dynamic and very positively!
Ugg Classic Cardy,discount, free shipping!

Posted by: ugg classic cardy at December 03, 2009 06:29 AM (ftu8y)

117 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what��s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

Posted by: reviewups at December 03, 2009 10:07 AM (OKj2x)

118 cheap Christian Louboutin

Posted by: cheap Christian Louboutin at December 07, 2009 03:09 AM (QN9Ge)

119 discount ugg boots
ugg boots outlet
cheap ugg outlet
cheap ugg boots
ugg classic tall
ugg bailey button
ugg rainier
ugg classic cardy
ugg classic crochet
ugg classic mini
ugg classic short
ugg classic tall
ugg nightfall
ugg sundance
ugg ultra short
ugg ultra tall
ugg boots 5389

Posted by: uggboots at December 07, 2009 11:15 AM (Cooh2)

120

ugg bailey button ugg classic mini

Posted by: ugg bailey button boots at December 10, 2009 10:58 AM (M80fF)

121 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

Posted by: ugg boots sale at December 10, 2009 04:59 PM (I3/dZ)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 13, 2009 12:46 AM (/3s/N)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 17, 2009 08:50 PM (1dySH)

124 يوتيوب يوتيوب فيديو News Politics يوتيوب أدب وشعر يوتيوب أناشيد يوتيوب الرحايا حجر القلوب يوتيوب باب الحارة 4 يوتيوب برامج تلفزيون يوتيوب برنامج لماذا يوتيوب بيت جدي 2 يوتيوب تعليم يوتيوب حرب الجواسيس يوتيوب حفلات المسرح يوتيوب دقات قلب 2 يوتيوب راجل وست ستات 5 يوتيوب رجال الحسم يوتيوب رياضة يوتيوب زمن العار يوتيوب سفر الحجارة يوتيوب سياحة وسفر يوتيوب علوم وتكنولوجيا يوتيوب فنجان الدم يوتيوب فنون يوتيوب قبائل الشرق يوتيوب كوميديا يوتيوب مسلسل الحب المستحيل يوتيوب مسلسل جواهر التركي يوتيوب مسلسل صبايا يوتيوب مسلسل عاصي التركي يوتيوب مسلسل ما اتخافوش يوتيوب مسلسلات رمضان 2009 يوتيوب موسيقى وأغاني يوتيوب هدوء نسبي يوتيوب وادي الذئاب 3

Posted by: youtube at December 23, 2009 08:08 PM (asNms)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 28, 2009 03:38 AM (1dySH)

126

�� -�� -�� -�� -��
��-�� -��-�� -�� -��
��-��
�� -��
�� -�� -��
��-��
��-��
��

Posted by: aglik at December 29, 2009 09:41 AM (nVm+l)

127 Cheap replica rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.

Posted by: tag heuer at January 01, 2010 10:19 AM (nUnK8)

Posted by: replica watches at January 05, 2010 10:35 AM (ndMAX)

129 replica rolex rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.breitling watches breitling watches at low price.

Posted by: rolex at January 06, 2010 10:00 AM (TspGB)

130 UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots
Ugg classic cardy
UGG cardy
Ugg Australia
Ugg Shoes Sale
Bailey Button
ugg boots

Posted by: ugg shoes|timberland uk|ugg boots|87415555.com.cn at January 06, 2010 08:24 PM (qzq48)

131 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

Posted by: El temporal de fr��o y nieve pone en alerta a once comunidades aut��nomas ugg boots|ugg uk|timberlan at January 09, 2010 07:00 AM (tWrEP)

132 Buy rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet> replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches watches replica montblanc watches.Rolex fake watches and replica watches brands,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer, replica rolex: replica rolex replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: panerai watches,replica armani watches: armani watches,replica audemars piguet: audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: chanel watches,replica gucci watches: gucci watches,replica movado watches: movado watches,replica montblanc watches: montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: patek philippe on sale.replica watches and replica watches.

Posted by: rolex at January 10, 2010 05:55 PM (OO9Jx)

Posted by: chi hair irons at January 17, 2010 05:14 PM (9oETl)

134 Good replica watches and buy replica watches and replica rolex replica replica tag heuer watches,buy replica replica omega watches and breitling watches replica breitling watches sale at lowest prices.

Posted by: replica watches at January 24, 2010 05:57 AM (ioa0w)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 28, 2010 05:48 AM (JOSIc)

136 Buy rolex replica watches and replica watches replica replica watches and replica rolex watches patek philippe watches and fake watches and breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches at lowest prices.

Posted by: replica rolex at January 29, 2010 05:37 PM (h+uyA)

Posted by: airmax at January 31, 2010 04:06 PM (3vSvS)

138 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 04, 2010 08:52 AM (CPNio)

139 Cheap replica watches and replica watches 100% copy replica watches of the previous omega watches model: the famous Manchester Logo is located at 3 and the cartier watches chronograph 45-minute breitling watches at 9 with orange figures. Football fans can use the very special 45-minute chronograph to measure the halves of a football match. Black patek philippe hour hand and minute hand features yellow luminescent coating. The hour makers, chronograph audemars piguet and the first 15-minute scale of the tag heuer chronograph counter is montblanc watches presented in eye-catching rolex red. Bright Yellow movado watches tones are found on the minute track, date bvlgari watches rolex on sale.

Posted by: replica watches at February 05, 2010 07:43 AM (0uEN8)

Posted by: may at February 06, 2010 07:31 PM (Eu9Vs)

141 this replica watches replica watchWhoever wants replica watches timekeeper that does the job of a tachometer will be crazy for. The operation is performed by the copied replica rolex 's bezel. The Daytona also applies automatic movement �C just one of many breitling watches characters and functionalities that ensures the precision of time. Originally created to measure lap time and the cartier watches overall time of a race, Rolex Daytona replica omega watches timepieces can measure elapsed time for omega any sporting event. The power of this breitling replica item is made possibly by its internalized perpetual rotor mechanism. Known for its precision, this special Rolex replica cartier watch model only has to be set once to the cartier watches standard time of the owner's choice. Once rolex watches being created, it updates itself during time changes, making upkeep of the replica's time setting replica watches nonexistent. Even though these replica watches were made for sporting events, (specifically those involving laps or circuits), it's not so adversible to put them tag heuer in water since they are not fake watches waterproof. Even thought most of the time, the replica watches do not bear the tag heuer same functionalities as the original ones, they are still the most desirable alternatives of the expensive real models.

Posted by: replica watches at February 07, 2010 12:36 AM (KbTNE)

142 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 07, 2010 01:21 PM (TUJDt)

143 Watches really Replica Watches are a great fashion replica item. This is because watch manufacturers such as Emporio Armani understand their customers wants and needs and rolex Watches know that rolex watches there is a big market for tag heuer Watches fashion tag heuer watches and designer movado watches in the UK. The number of people that demand these fashion watches has grown enormously over the past few years as people all want to have their own unique personality. Buying a watch can be a breitling watches long breitling Watches process. This is because there are so many watches to choose from that people cartier watches can spend a whole lot of time making their decision. One brand that is always popular is Emporio Armani. This is because Emporio Armani are one of the best fashion brands in the UK and they therefore offer customers some of the best fashion omega Watches available watches on omega the market. There are millions mens Watches of watches for a customer to choose when it comes to a watch. It's quite easy to make the right watch purchase decision. Or you just need to know what famous watch brands are and you may find what you like at once. Emporio Armani watches have been very popular for many mens Watches years.Women's watches Emporio Armani is a brand for style sense and mens Watches fashion which it shows in his range of fashion watches. No matter what watch brand you choose, it can be sure that the watch you are going to wear would show some of your personality.

Posted by: replica watches at February 09, 2010 04:19 PM (fa8ya)

Processing 0.08, elapsed 0.0831 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0113 seconds, 152 records returned.
Page size 155 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.