Does this have to with partisan politics or am i missing the point here?
2007-08-06 07:16:26 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mainly partisan politics.
Democrats get bashed if they say we should not attack.
Democrats get bashed if they say we should attack.
2007-08-06 07:19:09 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Partisan politics, and I find it quite ironic. The stereotype is that Democrats are soft and terror and have no backbone on war, Obama is challenging that.
A lot of people seem confused, Obama doesn't want to attack Pakistan. He wants to attack terrorists IN Pakistan that Pakistan claims don't exist, but all intelligence reports KEEP SAYING that's where Bin Laden is.
2007-08-06 14:25:25 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw this statement. He didn't say we should attack Pakistan, in the sense that we attacked Iraq, i.e. without just cause.
What he said is that *if* it were found that Pakistan is harboring the Taliban and al Queda, and if they refused to turn them over,, we'd go in and get them. And I agree with that.
We let the real terrorists slip away. If Bush said "we've found Osama in Pakistan, they won't apprehend him, so we're going to go get him" I would back that decision.
We're fighting the wrong war in Iraq, we need to find Osama and bring him to justice.
2007-08-06 15:20:58 · answer #3 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Bush said it, it would be based on intelligence and recommended by the experts, the military people on site. When Obama says it, it is just foolishness because he is not privvy to the information necessary to make an intelligent strategic decision about foreign policy. He's merely trying to appear strong and decisive. Or, as they say in TX, "He's all hat and no cattle".
2007-08-06 14:28:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well... even if you're a conservative or liberal... attacking an ally will undermine the world's trust in us, and they definitely won't help us combat terrorism. Besides, attacking Pakistan would open up another front where Al-Qaeda could call our invasion another war on Islam, making them more legitimate and handing them a tremendous propoganda boost.
2007-08-06 14:21:23 · answer #5 · answered by Treebeard 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In order to supply our troops there we must be able to fly over Pakistan to do it. If we alienate them or cause them to be un friendly then we could lose that privilege. To openly make a hostile statement like Obama did was rather reckless. A congessman is one thing but someone who could be president is another.
Also our friends in that area of the world is a small list, we need all the friends there we can get, even if there might be a string or two attached.
2007-08-06 14:22:50 · answer #6 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because in a section of the world that is already full of anti-American sentiment it probably isnt wise to invade another country, especially one with nuclear weapons and a large extremist community essentialy manipulating a weakening US supported dictator
2007-08-06 14:22:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Most Americans have lost the sarcastic touch because they only watch Fox News
2007-08-06 14:21:57 · answer #8 · answered by Whitest_American 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush did say it today.
http://www.yahoo.com/s/644964
2007-08-06 14:19:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush wont say that. He made those terrorists our allies. LOL
2007-08-06 14:22:37 · answer #10 · answered by The ROCK 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋