Having an objective of winning would help. And I definitely support our military. I am a Marine Corps veteran myself. But I cannot rally around a president who has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster - simply because he slides in with a decision that "sort of" supports the rationale of military leaders. I have never wavered in my support of the military and of our war against Islamic terrorists. I have yet to see our president indicate much support for the war we happen to be fighting at this very moment. He is a complete and total failure as president, and one semi-decent decision that arrives 3-4 months late after the deaths of more Americans simply can't turn his failure into success. It isn't about partisan politics. It is...

Gerson, I must say that you are missing it about 100% now. Was there anything said to define what victory in Afghanistan might look like? Or even what the objective is, other than pull out in 18 months?
Your article is counter-intuitive. It makes no sense to support the incoherent decisions of someone who clearly wants the US to be defeated in every way imaginable. The current rules of engagement and the determination to begin pulling out on a specified date will do nothing but encourage the terrorists. Obama doesn't believe in terrorists, so how could he be involved in a plan to kill them and defeat them? So now you are telling us to support a plan to get Americans killed with no plan to actually engage the enemy in combat....

I am looking for any form of relevance in this article and I am not finding it. At least admit that all the "mainstream media" refuse to any fact checking where Obama and his minions are concerned, but they rush in like vultures to find the slightest speck of dirt on respectable people like Sarah Palin. That is not simply responding to market demands. It is dishonest. If you want to write about the demise of journalism, at least mention the blatant dishonesty now prevalent!

I would think that the media uniting to call for a special prosecutor to dig into Obama's illegal involvement with ACORN would be mere effective than simply asking some questions that allow him to launch his usual talking points. If the previous administration had such questionable ties, we can be sure the media would be in a full blown frenzy to get a prosecutor and get him impeached. Sorry John, but your ideas always come across as weak and ineffective.

This was so obviously a propaganda set up from Hamas - handed to the dupes in media who can't seem to resist anything that paints Israel in a bad light. There has never been a blockade to humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. Israel has vast quantities of aid flowing into Gaza on a daily basis. They even directed this "flotilla" to a port where their cargo could be inspected for weapons and passed on through the normal channels. But, try to find any of that information presented on any major news program or print outlet. Maybe we should just say they are willingly duped when it comes to bad press for Israel.

I have believed for some time that a special prosecutor should be appointed. The purpose would be to investigate Barak Obama's involvement with ACORN and his culpability under RICO laws. The depth of his involvement practically guarantees his collusion with illegal activities. If not a special prosecutor, then at least a congressional investigation. He should be prosecuted if found guilty!

Wayne, I am basically in agreement with you, but let me take issue on one point. You stated that politicians are exploiting the "health crisis." Did I miss some important memo? What health crisis are you referring to? Are Americans dropping dead at an alarming rate or something? How could I have missed something so large as a health crisis?
Why are so many willing to accept the false premise that we have a so called health crisis? I think you need to back up and rethink that one. That's where we need to keep the debate. I refuse to move past that. There is no reason at all for government to be meddling with health care in the first place.

Pardon my intrusion upon a seemingly nuanced and progressive spin on the personal faith issues related to Republican primaries, but this one is fairly simple and straightforward. Anyone who has enough exposure to Christian theology to claim serving as an "evangelical" pastor for over 2 decades, and then converting to Catholicism is obviously confused on matters of faith. I would not bother with this person's opinion on any topic related to faith or theology. Town Hall wasted their publican space with this dose of theological ignorance. Oh. . . and even if I were as confused as Mr. Hunt, I certainly wouldn't put my theological ignorance on public display as he has. 'Nuff said.