In one of the early debates Obama said he as President would go after terrorist cells in Pakistan where we had actionable intelligence. He was roundly critisized for making a perceived threat to an allied nation. Guess he wasn't so inexperienced as we thought. Looks like he was right.
2007-12-28 05:28:26 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Doesn't sound so silly now, does it?
2007-12-28 05:30:49 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
The what if questions are dangerous and the situation in Pakistan is way too volatile to talk about attacking terrorists now. The time to have done that was anytime when we were supposed to be looking for Bin Laden.
For years, our policy has been to throw money at Musharaaf rather than work for true reform.
It's funny how no one is suggesting that Condie Rice run for president anymore.
2007-12-28 05:48:07 · answer #2 · answered by mickbw 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What are you mad? If we attacked Pakistan it would be an even greater and bloodier quagmire than Iraq. Pakistan has over 150 million people, about half our country's population. Iraq only has less than 30 million people. There is no way we would be able to secure that country for any long period of time without going completely bankrupt.
2007-12-28 05:33:55 · answer #3 · answered by S C 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Remember when Hillary made fun of Obama because in Kindergarten he wrote an essay about how he one day wants to be President?
Low blow!
2007-12-28 05:32:17 · answer #4 · answered by xo379 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you are right. I don't understand why Bush who loves War won't go after the real terrorist that are responsible for 911.
2007-12-28 05:33:06 · answer #5 · answered by Just my opinion 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Exactly. Maybe he has a better take on global politics than everyone thinks.
Obama in '08.
2007-12-28 08:15:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋