I could use this space to show the foolishness of his Pakistan comments , but I won't . This question is about his public statements to negotiate with American enemies , yet attack American allies . And nothing more .
Negotiate With American Enemies. . . . .. . . ..
Attack American Allies. . . . . .. .
Does anyone at all see any consistency in those two points ?
If anyone does see anything resembling logic in those two points I would surely love to see your rationale . And please include an instruction manual as to how to put those two points together logically .
2007-08-07 19:00:12 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I must say when I read your question my first thought was the Anti Christ is among us. Now is this logical or rational thought? Some would say it is not, But like Michael Chertoff I have a gut feeling
2007-08-08 03:40:03 · answer #1 · answered by deedee2qu 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He made a ham-handed, bush-league mistake, and then compounded it. I guess I can't be all that bothered by that because I didn't think he had much maturity or experience anyway. And anyone who is really in his corner will either explain it away or secretly delight in any anti-Bush and anti-American implications of the comment.
__________
PS The more I think about it, the more I believe the Petraeus report will just end up being a Rorschach test for the pro-war and anti-war sides. Each side will "spin" the report to support their position no matter what it says. To me, it all boils down to whether vital US interests are at stake. If they are (and I believe so), a negative report only means we have to try harder - if it's that important we can't afford to lose. If there are no vital interests at stake, it doesn't matter and we should cut our losses now. The report won't do a lot to answer the question of "is it worth it." Again, I think it is.
Keep the good questions coming! Thanks.
2007-08-08 00:01:48 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Everything that is coming out of Obama and Clinton's game of 'Bait Then, One-Up' bothers me, but nothing either has said surprises me.
Squarely pathetic performances are all that can be expected when the libs support these kinds of amateurs in a presidential campaign.
If the party had any sense of what is needed to run the presidency, they'd dump these two and go with Biden for the nomination.
Funny - so many libs bearing their blood lust and believing it okay to bomb ally territory, as though pinpointing and separating Al-Qaeda operatives is that easy.
Oh, but they don't want to make enemies....
Guess they'll ask that they wave black flags as we fly over just to make sure that we don't kill any of the innocent.
Great idea, eh, Earnest?
2007-08-07 19:53:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
There is no consistency except the naive level of understanding of this country's history of foreign policy and the need to not let the terrorists ever have an edge or we will be doomed. He is beginning to be the worst candidate out there with his destructive views.
2007-08-08 07:47:33 · answer #4 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it would bother me if he actually became President. At this point, it's still early in the game & having him a major player is a GREAT way to tear apart the democratic party. They've been so focused on righting the wrongs of minority groups that I think no single dem candidate is going to make everyone in their party happy.
Let them self destruct!
2007-08-08 03:48:35 · answer #5 · answered by Roland'sMommy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We are seeing the destruction of Obama in front of our very eyes.
The press can spin enough to save him now.
If he gets any farther how his going to face some real heat.
He can't keep avoiding conservatives of conservative press.
Hillary at least when she voted to get out of Iraq she went and talk to the vets face to face why. Obama when to his cheerleaders and explain why.
For that as much as I don't like Hillary she got more respect from me than did Obama.
2007-08-08 02:57:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The answers to this question are absurd "If terrorists are in pakistan i dont consider them allies, i consider them enemies" What?
So if we find terrorists in New York do you want Obama to invade NYC??
Thats totally insane.
2007-08-07 21:09:28 · answer #7 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It is impossible to put any rhyme or reason to it, because there isn't any. That man is an idiot and an appeaser. It is obvious he has zero clue what the War on Terror even IS, let alone how to run it, and he certainly has no interest in winning it.
2007-08-08 01:26:11 · answer #8 · answered by hottiecj *~♥~*~♥~* 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Obama is grandstanding, hopefully his statements have ended his political ambitions! They are in need of some evaluation by professionals, you know the type with white coats that have rubber room s available for some in need
2007-08-07 22:59:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
He's smart. Not dumb like you. If you think Pakistan is "Good" nation, your just as dumb as Adolf Bushler.
And lemme tell you something, after these comments of Obama, 90% of the Indians are gonna vote for him. And Indians are out there in huge nos. So smart move Obama. Addressing the real issue as well as securing crucial votes ;-)
2007-08-07 20:51:47 · answer #10 · answered by The ROCK 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋