Is Obama and his Far Left flock about to learn winning wars is not about being politically correct?

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya鈥檚 civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?_r=1Is Obama and his Far Left flock about to learn winning wars is not about being politically correct?
Multilateral is the anti-cowboy, did you not understand how the term was used to describe W?
I bet you have never researched the Neo Con movement This is what happens lies always capture people faster than honest facts

thttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info鈥?/a>

VERY SCARY %26gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWl鈥?/a> %26lt; VERY SCARYIs Obama and his Far Left flock about to learn winning wars is not about being politically correct?
Your theory is flawed as it depends

on the ability of dem/libs to learn.
Two realities you have to face here. Your source is an editorial and you're using "political correct" out of context.Is Obama and his Far Left flock about to learn winning wars is not about being politically correct?
Coming from a person who's name is Obamalies Bigtime, I don't find your source to very credible.
He's kinda busy to worry about such things right now.
Gee, I'm a lib and you're telling me, even if I am politically correct we won't win in Iraq?
what next, will the republicans nominate a black presidential candidate? your logic is illogical

publishing companies