2007-08-06 17:41:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I sense a little bias for those supporting Obama. There is no certainty that Osama is in Pakistan but Bush haters are quickly supporting a war with Pakistan........as long as the war is started by a Democrat.
2007-08-06 18:25:59 · update #1
Nope, but as people wake up and realize the truth rather than hyping Romney's spin, it might hurt Romney.
Isn't it funny that Pakistan's leader who has been milking our tax dollars out of the Bush admin, but really doing nothing, takes the same side as Romney?
Maybe we should quit paying Pakistan for playing safe haven for Osama.
2007-08-06 19:22:54 · answer #1 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the only ones that continue to criticize Obama, like Mitt Romney did in yesterday's debate, are the ones that choose to misinterpret what Obama actually said. I also thought it was interesting and funny that Musharraf squealed like a pig over it. Good! He's been playing both ends against the middle, taking money from the US, Bush promises more for the tribal regions where Al Qaeda is located and we've seen no results. Obama says go after Al Qaeda or we will come and take them. He may be inexperienced, but he makes more sense to me than Bush pumping $750 million into an area where we know Al Qaeda is hiding out. What are the chances they get their hands on that money and use it to fund attacks against us?
You're making an incorrect assumption. I'm not advocating going to war with Pakistan; he wasn't either. He said 'send troops'. The way I read it, troops could well mean covert ops teams with snipers. If we've learned anything, it should be that conventional warfare does not work against rebel forces. It's not working in Iraq, it didn't work in Vietnam and it didn't go well for the British when we won independence from them. I support fighting real terrorists and fighting to win; conventional warfare is not the way to win.
2007-08-07 00:58:59 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A lot of people I've talked to think he really hurt himself. In the debate, when Sen. Clinton put him in his place regarding meeting with heads of state, and then again when he made the comments about Pakistan. He's trying to appear tough, but he ended up sounding naive and inexperienced regarding our diplomatic process. His inexperience was bound to show itself, it already has in the debates overall. We've got a long way to go in the race, so nothing's written in stone yet. But he's not going to catch up to Hillary doing it this way.
2007-08-07 01:32:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If you notice, President Bush has had to respond to criticism that he has NOT acted as Obama said he would.
If anything, I believe this gives him more emphasis as he continues to demonstrate that he is a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination.
2007-08-07 00:46:58 · answer #4 · answered by ken erestu 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think it is about time we go after Osama and the rest of his soldiers!!
Barack Obama will finish what Bush screwed up!!
2007-08-07 00:48:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Why should it? At least he wants to go after Bin Laden. That's more than Bush is willing to do.
2007-08-07 00:46:24 · answer #6 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I do not think it helps any. It makes him look irrational and out of control.
2007-08-07 00:51:22 · answer #7 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Probably.
2007-08-07 01:24:08 · answer #8 · answered by Saint 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That and the fact that he thinks like a socialist.
2007-08-07 00:47:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
It did not help.
2007-08-07 00:44:54 · answer #10 · answered by eric l 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋