I sure don't!
Besides being laughably incredulous coming from him, it is also myopic and reckless. This clown has never served in the military and it shows. Who goes around broadcasting strategic intent to the enemy?
His careless statements, which basically telegraph an intent to violate the national soverignty of an allied nation, undermine a key US ally in President Pervez Musharraf .
August 03, 2007
Senator Obama's tough remarks, which prompted the Pakistani Government to caution presidential candidates against "point-scoring" on crucial security issues, came in a bold speech laying out his anti-terrorism strategy
Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said she would not comment as Senator Obama was not president, but added: "These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring. Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22178844-31477,00.html?from=public_rss
2007-08-02 04:40:32 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Isn't there a little duplicity here? I'm beginning to think this guy is not so bright as some believe he is.
According to HIS OWN rule book he would have to
1. Wade through various and sundry worthless UN resolutions, starting with the standard resolution and working up through the strongly worded resolution.
2. Wait out UN sanctions no body would observe.
3. Deal with France, Germany and Russia who would refuse to support any resolution calling for the use of troops.
4. Secure a joint resolution from congress authorizing the use of force.
5. Get Charlie Rangle to reintroduced his draft bill.
And yet he's opposed to the Iraq war. Okay.
2007-08-03 03:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He wanted to separate himself from Hillary. He wants to show he's a tough guy. These Democrats know they won't be elected president if they appear to be soft on National Security. This was one of the first substantive things he's said and it was stupid. What does that tell us?
2007-08-02 13:19:57 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know, when I read the Constitution, I don't recall one of the requirements of being the President of the United States being that you had to have served in the Armed Forces. So that's one bullshit point for you.
Second of all, making tough statements is what most politicians do to let their policies go forward on the record. We sure as hell are talking tough about a lot of places, or at least we did at one time, didn't we? Are we not talking about Pakistan in a less than cordial manner in the Bush administration? Are we still not showing everyone how much Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq? Are we not being tough with North Korea? What about Afghanistan? Now we have a lot of people we don't like, and we talk tough about them too. What, only sitting US Presidents are allowed to talk tough? Bullshit item #2.
Bullshit item #3 has to do with the fact that the US Special Forces, SEAL Teams, Marine Force Recon and any number of other special ops teams have probably been crawling around in the areas of Pakistan where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding since we missed him in Tora Bora. The difference here is one of plausible deniability for a sitting US President. But putting your armed soldiers into a "friendly" nation is considered to be an act of war, regardless of the reason. If you actually DO the act, it's less dangerous than saying you might?
You take the cake, mate.
2007-08-02 11:51:52 · answer #3 · answered by joshcrime 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Osama Bin Laden is probably hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. He also has many supporters in the country. If we were to find and kill him while there, his supporters would riot and kill the current president of Pakistan. There have already been many attempts at his life. Then we would have to deal with them. Let's leave them alone for now. B. Obama needs to research his promises a little more before he makes them.
2007-08-02 11:51:51 · answer #4 · answered by .. 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
These pinkies who speak out about the Iraq war yet, insist we go after and chase down Al-Qaeda 'wherever they exist' are leaving one piece of pertinent info completely out of the picture -
to do so would mean invading several independent sovereign nations.
Seems like that's a rather large piece to omit, doesn't it?
Not surprising that their thinking is, like always, seriously flawed.
2007-08-02 11:56:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Look at more of what Obama said.
He has painted himself into Bush's corner.
One of the more liberal candidates in the race, he is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush!!!???
Holy Cow: Additionally Obama will call for at least two additional brigades to redeploy to Afghanistan to re-enforce U.S. counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. This would be accompanied by political and economic efforts, Obama will say, pledging to increase nonmilitary U.S. aid to Afghanistan by a whopping $1 billion.
Hang on to your wallets kids.
The war on terror is real and should be our nations #1 prority. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans, They are plotting to strike again”
"According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from al Qaeda is “persistent and evolving.” "
"The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for."
I had to look up, I thought it was Cheney. Thank god for skin tone.
As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa.
He's going global! There goes our individual freedoms!
Has Obama come over to the dark side? Yipes.
Whatever happened to:
'Talking with our enemies without preconditions?
Whatever happened to:
'Improving our image around the world'?
Hillary is going to rip his head off.
What the rest of the field has in common with him is that they all think getting out of Iraq is a blank check to go EVERYWHERE else only he's a novice and says it out loud.
2007-08-02 12:13:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Democrat" is just another word for "demagogue". They take positions that are popular because they sound nice, knowing all the while that they're not realistic.
Who cares if social security, welfare, and socialized medicine are a complete waste of taxpayer money and are completely un-American?
It gets them elected.
2007-08-02 12:39:03 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not a soul in their right mind. I am sure that Soros got hold of him and the left of left liberals and say.....hey....we want to win, go out there speak with forked tongue you idiot. Remember....we own you and you will help make sure a Dem gets in this time.
2007-08-02 13:49:53 · answer #8 · answered by kickinupfunf 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the same thing that intelligence has been saying since 2001. Osama is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You finally have a Presidential candidate with enough sack to tell you the truth, who has also been behind the war in Afghanistan and you want to dismiss him because he doesn't support Iraq.
That's just crackhead logic.
2007-08-02 11:51:25 · answer #9 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I don't get it. Does he propose using nukes on our ally, since they have them too?
Who says the US is NOT trying to get bin Laden? Does no one understand the concept of covert operations anymore?
2007-08-02 11:46:40 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋