Has Obama turned into a hawk to score points?

Question

Barack Hussein Obama now says that if he is president he would attack Al Quida inside Pakistan if the Pakistani president didnt act. Now is this a pitiful attempt to score points as the Pakistani govt. says it is and its funny before he said there was no Al Quida it was all in Bushs mind.

Answer 1

Unless you can produce a quote in which Barack Obama actually said there was no such thing as Al Qaeda, I've got to assume your entire question is similar idiocy. But to answer your question--all politicians want to score points. That doesn't mean they don't mean what they say.

Answer 2

Obama has NEVER said there is no Al Qaeda. He has been from the beginning a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, after all that was the country that provided a refuge and training grounds for the people who orchestrated the attack on us. If the head of that organization is in Pakistan and since it seems Musharraf is losing control, he is indeed correct to say, send in the troops to get the SOB. If that makes him hawkish in your view then so be it. He was the ONLY sensible candidate from either party who indicated rightly that invading Iraq would be a mistake. They did not provide funding, logistics etc to the attackers on 9/11 and the piss poor excuse we used to invade Iraq is just that piss poor. A country that has nukes and has a crumbling society which is vulnerable to Al Qaeda would have been a better bet and would have had the backing of most of the world not the so called Coalition of the coerced.

Answer 3

Obama never said there was no al-Qaida. He said--as everyone already knows, and Bush has admitted this--that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq before Bush's invasion.

And Obama has not suddenly become a "hawk;" he is only saying what Democarats have BEEN saying for years--that we need to stop Bush's imperial war of conquest in Iraq and go after America's real enemies where they really are.

The neocons are so wrapped up in their indoctrinated fantasy that "liberals won't fight" that they haven't heard this: so here it is again: we want to destroy the terrorists who are the REAL enemy. Not waste more lives and money in a pointless war in Iraq. That's not cut and run--that's taking the fight to the real enemy.

Something the cons don't have the guts to do.lol

Answer 4

I don't know if he is saying it to score votes, but nonetheless, its nice to see someone with, the nuts to go hunt terrorists where they are and not continue to fight a civil war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

I know a lot of mindless conservatives will give me a thumbs down because there are terrorists in Iraq and some of them may even be Al Qaeda. however, Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's government and the borders were left undefended. I've always been a Republican, but I may have to go with Obama in 08.

Answer 5

Quite possibly -- and it's a sound political strategy.

Oppose what most Americans see as not working (the Iraq occupation) and instead say you want to focus on what most Americans actually oppose (Al Qaeda).

Obama may be young, but he understands politics.

Answer 6

Obama is trying to commit political suicide, just like John McCain. The last thing the American people want is another war-mongering president who is hell-bent on invading every other country on the face of the earth.

These candidates are turning into major butt-wipes, making a big deal about cleavage and ignoring things that really matter, like the national debt. Not one of them is worth anything.

Answer 7

His ranting about the future is a waste of time because Hillary has it sewed up. I had hoped He could carry the party to a victory but this ranting cost Him my support. The failure to look at reality and temper his statement demonstrated his being unprepared for the office he seeks. The Clinton crowd will crucify him over this.

Answer 8

He never said there was no Al Quida.

Answer 9

Does anybody forget we've been attacked. We began a conflict because of the fact they got here and killed practically 3,000 human beings! that's a extensive sort of harmless human beings ineffective. have been we in basic terms meant to stand by using and enable that befell. If that crap befell back whilst our founding fathers have been in charge they might've accomplished an analogous ingredient different than they might've been greater brutal. Our troops at the instant are not victims. practically all of them had to bypass to conflict for this usa. What have been we in basic terms meant to take a seat down by using and by using enable iran and iraq make us their *****? My sister is in the air stress and graduated good Gun and he or she had already accomplished her time in the militia and whilst 9/eleven befell she have been given top back in to combat for our usa. Im no longer saying i think of Bush grew to become right into a large president yet I do have faith that commencing that conflict grew to become into the main recommendations-blowing ingredient to do. so a techniques as Obama, he's the main important mistake this usa ever made. ask your self why his popularity score dropped next to no longer something. Wanna communicate approximately dropping money could we even open which could of worms?? i might particularly have a president that don't take any **** from terrorists than a president that provides huge issues and alter yet provides the main important load of canine doodoo I fairly have ever smelled. There a great sort of motives that folk HATE Obama. and maximum recommendations-blowing me if Im incorrect yet he's not ending any conflict in any respect. he's persevering with it, that's why he despatched over one greater 30,000 troops ask your self how a lot of those have died... and so a techniques as spending Obama has spent $535 Billion greater year over year than Bush's maximum year of spending. And by using saying the conflict is ineffective you assert that it grew to become into appropriate and ok that each and every physique those human beings died...ask your self how those victims households experience approximately that....slightly un-american in case you inquire from me..... And the sorrowful section is that if given the prospect over a million/2 of the people who voted for Obama (fifty 9%) would not have voted for him.

Answer 10

Talking to the heads of governments that we now consider enemies rather than finding out what their agendas are first is being a "hawk?" Don't think so. I've already decided against him and there's little he can do to change that, I think.