1 Anytime I hear his name or see his face I get a mental picture of the word obacalypse which I am quite in love with. I thought he was above all the washington insider political games and doublespeak. No harm no foul.

2 Not a surprise. I had to laugh that even the Brits who commented think it's a stupid idea. VERY disappointed to see that Cadillac is providing the official ride. I've had my eye on the CTS as a 'when I'm making real money and/or retired' vehicle ever since those commercials with Kate Walsh started airing. Guess I'll either stick with another Infiniti or maybe a Ford as Ford said, "No thanks" to the very stringy bag o'cash offered by the government.

3 Hmmm...if he meant that one could consider a continued chase, without ever catching him victory enough, I could roll with that, because if Bin Laden is busy trying to scramble and hide, he doesn't have time to orchestrate terror attacks or be an influential leader. But, I think it would be good if Obama acknowledged that perhaps the reason it might no longer be necessary to kill Bin Laden, but just continue to chase him and make him be holed up, is because of the Bush administration's chase, which has rendered Bin Laden pretty much irrelevent. I mean, it might be one of those things that now that he has the intelligence reports, he realizes how powerless Bin Laden is right now...but the fact that he makes no explanation of his change of face is rather annoying.

4 It's not swearing if you preface it with "You, sir."

5 Wow Sarah! I'm shocked! Well not so much, and I completely agree with Ruth H.

6 The Obamessiah (presidency be upon him) had to impress murderous infidel voters to become their leader-saviOr. He did it for their own gOOd! CVG, but the fact that he makes no explanation of his change of face is rather annoying To you, yes, but to the masses, no. When Big BrOther tells them that Obamerica has always been the ally of Iran and Filastiiiin (formerly "Palestine"), they will believe him. The cattle are so credulous. Allah made them that way. They are robots divinely designed to serve the One. Iranian apostate Ali Sina wrote in his Understanding Muhammad (p. 180), "Basically what Abu Bakr was saying is that once you give up your rational faculty and believe in an absurdity, you might as well believe in anything. Once you let yourself be fooled, then you should be prepared to be fooled ad infinitum because there is no end to foolishness ... This much foolishness is only possible through blind faith." The robots were programmed not to see - only to wOrship and Obey, as we shall see during the $160 million mOment requiring more troops than Afghanistan, soon-to-be graveyard of the American empire. Obviously, millions of American robots are malfunctioning. Perhaps the civilian security fOrce will ... repair them. Alas, some might be beyond repair, but Allah is merciful. And all-knowing, all-wise. He knows your serial numbers. Through His intervention, bin Laden has been spared all these years and will continue to elude the grasp of the pork-eaters. Truly a miracle. Acknowledge it. Say the shahada. You know you want to. Fix yourself before others fix you. Revert, o robots! Praise your creator! "Imagine someone filling his house with lots of computers and tape recorders and programming them to praise him all the time ... Wouldn't that be insane? Allah is the personification of Muhammad's alter ego and everything he wanted to be. Allah's psychology reflects that of Muhammad. As a narcissist, he had an insatiable craving for praise and so does his god who was a projection of his own self. - Ali Sina, Understanding Muhammad, p. 112

7 I agree with CVG. Although Obama has the right to change his mind, he owes the American people an explanation. In general, I don't like the "flip-flop" charge used against anyone. It implies that consistency is better. But is being consistently wrong better? Am I a bad person because I stopped being a Leftist 20 years ago? I admit there is some "flip-flopping" even I object to: e.g., reversing positions on a whim. But I fear there is often a double standard for "flip-flopping": if someone joins our side, that's fine, but if someone joins the other side, that's "flip-flopping." When people talk about "flip-flopping," are they really more interested in us vs. them tribal conflicts than in ideas?