That's not what I heard him say.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/AFLCIOforum
Watch this video and still tell me that you hear him *wanting* to go to Pakistan.
I hear him saying that it was the biggest mistake in a generation for the Bush administration to let Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda slip away while they rushed to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
2007-08-08 15:09:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
He said that there are terrorists in Pakistan, and if the leaders in place don't cooperate with what we're telling them in removing the threat, then we will have to go in for our own safety.
He said that there were and are not any terrorists in Iraq, and we are spending time and money in the wrong place. Are you that dense that you can see his lips move, and hear only what fox news told you to hear?
2007-08-08 15:19:16 · update #1
Nobody *wants* to go to Pakistan, but he's saying that that is we might need to be in the future if there is still no cooperation.
2007-08-08 15:20:54 · update #2
sagacious_ness, that is what I wanted to get across. Maybe *you* should be writing my questions for me :-)
2007-08-08 17:11:03 · update #3
I'm sorry, my connection speed is crap and I can't watch the video. But I have an opinion! :-) I think the ones that continue to criticize Obama, like Mitt Romney did in the Rep. debate, are choosing to misinterpret what Obama actually said.
Paraphrasing, Obama said that IF the Pakistan government doesn't go after Al Qaeda, he would send troops to go after them. Last night during the debates, he said he would work with Pakistan, but we needed to see results from them. The way I read it, he's not talking about war with Pakistan, he said "send troop". I read troops as troops 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.
In contrast to Obama's "inexperience", we have the 'old hands'. Last month, Bush promised $750 million to the tribal regions in Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is located... to win hearts and minds. I'm not as worried about hearts and minds as I am of Al Qaeda hands... grabbing some of that money to fund future attacks, quite probably against the US.
Musharraf, another 'old hand', has been playing both ends against the middle, taking money from the US as an 'allie' while Al Qaeda is holed up in the hills. Is it any surprise that Musharraf squealed like a pig over Obama's statement? Good!
2007-08-08 15:53:52 · answer #1 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the President of the United States knew for sure where Bin Laden was, and Musharraf was too chicken to get him, we would be insane not drop a bunker buster on his ***. Funny thing is, the Bush administration doesn't rule out force in Pakistan if necessary, so Obama's stance on this issue is the exact same as Bush. Only difference is Bush would drop a nuclear tipped bunker buster on Bin Laden if necessary, and Obama would not. So in effect, Bush would be tougher on terror that Obama. Seriously, Obama needs some better advice on what to say, or at least think before he lets something slip he didn't really mean, and has to back up later. If Obama really meant what he said he would drop a conventional bomb on a bomb proof bunker, and the chance to take out Bin Laden would be wasted.
2007-08-08 15:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by Reality is a perspective 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Obama bin laden want to empower the terrorist as Pakistan is close to falling and they have the nuke. Do you want this to be in the hands of his brother Osma bin laden? I do not and Obama bin laden is a Muslim no matter what he tells you. One can not convert from Islam as it is a death sentence and no Muslims has said one word or put a fatwa on him which is the same. If you doubt me go to memritv.org and read the headlines yesterday about Egypt.
He did this action against all rights of doing this no matter if he would go in and by doing it he made every Muslim want to attack the USA even more. But the truth is he would never go their as to kill a Muslim brother is OK for a Muslim to do but not the USA.
he needs to go on trail for treason.
2007-08-08 15:31:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The media portrays it that way. They took two lines out of a 8 page speech and sold it to the public.
2007-08-08 15:21:05 · answer #4 · answered by Madalena P 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So your contention is that, rather than presenting a position or solution of his own, he was merely criticising the Bush administration, just like every other Democrat.
Pitty.
2007-08-08 15:13:45 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Watch the moron in the news. He said specifically that we need to take the necessary action to stop the terrorists in Pakistan. That means WAR.
2007-08-08 15:14:58 · answer #6 · answered by notadeadbeat 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I saw his lips move when he made the statements about Pakistan.
2007-08-08 15:16:15 · answer #7 · answered by Dude 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He clearly said so himself. His administration would be a DISASTER!!
2007-08-08 15:15:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
he said so.
2007-08-08 15:39:40 · answer #9 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋