PDA

View Full Version : Ouch..dem candidates smack Obama on Pakistan stand


mlyonsd
08-01-2007, 07:02 PM
Democratic Opponents Slam Barack Obama For Speech on Pakistan

Wednesday, August 01, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

WASHINGTON —
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (javascript:siteSearch('Barack Obama');)'s Democratic presidential rivals slammed him Wednesday, calling it a sign of inexperience to suggest sending GIs to Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda terrorists, declaring that, "if President Musharraf won't act, we will."


"Frankly, I am not sure what Barack is calling for in his speech this morning. But it is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States wou
ld needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," said Sen. Chris Dodd (javascript:siteSearch('Sen. Chris Dodd');), D-Conn.

In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C., — billed as a major foreign policy address — Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
He offered harsh words to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (javascript:siteSearch('Pervez Musharraf');), who has been the target of assassination attempts for his efforts to aid the United States in rooting out terrorist havens in the northwestern region of his country.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama said he would place heavy conditions on the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid if Pakistan isn't up to the task of combating terrorists.

"Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," he said.
Obama's critics said being confrontational toward Pakistan doesn't help fight the War on Terror.

Hunting down Usama bin Laden (javascript:siteSearch('Usama bin Laden');) and stopping terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons is a priority, Dodd said. "But I will not declare my intentions for specific military action to the media in the context of a political campaign."

"My international experience tells me that we should address this problem with tough diplomacy with General Musharraf first, leaving the military as a last resort. It is important to reach out to moderate Muslim states and allies to ensure we do not unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (javascript:siteSearch('Gov. Bill Richardson');), another 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

Sen. Joe Biden (javascript:siteSearch('Sen. Joe Biden');) said he wrote the recently passed law that conditions aid to Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

"Before writing the law, Biden wrote to President Musharraf and Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice making clear his intent to do so," a statement from Biden's campaign reads.

The statement then went on to ridicule Obama for not asking Amb. John Negroponte at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in January anything about Afghanistan or the Taliban, and quoted him discussing the “stunning level of mercury in fish.”

“It’s good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership.” said Biden campaign manager Luis Navarro.

In his remarks, Obama had plenty of criticism of President Bush for his handling of the War on Terror.

"The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of Al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates Al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn't exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan," Obama said, adding: "He confuses our mission."

Bush has said he would order military action if intelligence showed top terror leaders were hiding in Afghanistan, but the relationship with Musharraf has been friendly and cooperative.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said none of the administration's policies about keeping military options open to respond to actionable intelligence precludes working with the Pakistanis. He cited the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an example of an important joint operation that yielded successful results.

"Our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government," he said.

In his remarks, Obama made no mention of Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton. She called his foreign policy views last week naive and has continued to build a growing lead in the polls amid increasingly vocal concerns among Democratic voters about Obama's relative lack of experience.

While she and other Democrats say the United States is safer since Sept. 11, 2001, Obama continues to disagree.

"Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11," he said.

FOX News' Carl Cameron contributed do this report.

mlyonsd
08-01-2007, 07:03 PM
I appreciate his cander on the subject. He'd have to do some explaining to convince me it made sense mind you but this is clearly a departure from the other candidates.

Hydrae
08-01-2007, 07:21 PM
Obama said he would place heavy conditions on the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid if Pakistan isn't up to the task of combating terrorists.

Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction to find it myself, how much money do we give away to other countries every year? This is a country that has been able to develop a nuclear weapon but we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in military support??? No wonder we can't take care of shit here and I am paying 1/2 my earnings in taxes. :cuss:

recxjake
08-01-2007, 07:29 PM
August 1, 2007.... the day Obama lost any chance for a WH bid.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 07:52 PM
Obama is naive and is showing his lack of experience. I'm starting to think he's an empty suit as he just keeps saying stupid stuff that is hurting him politically and in reality makes no sense. Hillary is going to crush him.

noa
08-01-2007, 08:04 PM
Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction to find it myself, how much money do we give away to other countries every year? This is a country that has been able to develop a nuclear weapon but we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in military support??? No wonder we can't take care of shit here and I am paying 1/2 my earnings in taxes. :cuss:

This isn't about the money we give away in total, just to Pakistan specifically, but I thought it was relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/opinion/31thompson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that only about $900 million of the $10 billion we've given Pakistan since 2002 has gone to health, education and democracy promotion. Most of the rest has gone to the military. The Bush administration has recently taken steps to change this ration.

mlyonsd
08-01-2007, 08:06 PM
Obama is naive and is showing his lack of experience. I'm starting to think he's an empty suit as he just keeps saying stupid stuff that is hurting him politically and in reality makes no sense. Hillary is going to crush him.

You might think he's pandering but to be fair he does have a real sense of what Americans want....OBL's head.

I could be for it if he makes a good case.

If Mussheirif(sp?) can't do the right thing he does have a point.

Although we'd have to understand going in what might happen to their nukes.

Destabilizing Pakistan could be the wrong move but it could also bolster regional help (China).

noa
08-01-2007, 08:07 PM
Obama is naive and is showing his lack of experience. I'm starting to think he's an empty suit as he just keeps saying stupid stuff that is hurting him politically and in reality makes no sense. Hillary is going to crush him.

He got a little jump in the polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina after he stood up to Hillary at the Youtube debate. I think he's realizing that he should set himself apart from the rest of the Dems. Say that he has a different approach because he is an outsider who isn't stuck in the ways of Washington. Saying that he would be willing to talk to our enemies and consider action against Pakistan allows him to point out that his decision making process is different from the rest of the Dems, which is why he was right about Iraq and was right in being opposed to this war from the beginning. Not sure its a winning strategy, but I think that's the approach he is taking.

oldandslow
08-01-2007, 08:09 PM
I honestly believe he will be Hillary's running mate.

Which is too bad.

Ms. Clinton is going to be our next Pres - which, imo, is an unfortunate portrait of the current state of US politics.

mlyonsd
08-01-2007, 08:15 PM
I honestly believe he will be Hillary's running mate.

Which is too bad.

Ms. Clinton is going to be our next Pres - which, imo, is an unfortunate portrait of the current state of US politics.

Wanna bet?

I'm putting up whatever you choose at Carey's.

Not that I doubt you're right mind you, just that I'd like to meet you.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 08:17 PM
Clinton/Bayh vs. Giuliani/Sanford

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:22 PM
I don't think Hillary is a lock for the Presidency. In fact I think she will be exposed in the general election. It all depends how good the Republican nomination is. If Thompson does it right he has a shot. Rudy may as well but I'd rather see him as VP or perhaps Governor of NY

noa
08-01-2007, 08:25 PM
Hillary has very high unfavorable ratings

recxjake
08-01-2007, 08:25 PM
I don't think Hillary is a lock for the Presidency. In fact I think she will be exposed in the general election. It all depends how good the Republican nomination is. If Thompson does it right he has a shot. Rudy may as well but I'd rather see him as VP or perhaps Governor of NY


I agree with your point that she is no lock....

Once Rudy is on stage debating her... he will crush her.

FYI... Rudy is polling the strongest against Hillary... Northeastern blue states are in play for him, and California.

noa
08-01-2007, 08:27 PM
I don't know recxjake, Hillary is a very good debater. That doesn't make her a great candidate, but I'm sure she could stand up to Rudy on the debate floor

recxjake
08-01-2007, 08:29 PM
I don't know recxjake, Hillary is a very good debater. That doesn't make her a great candidate, but I'm sure she could stand up to Rudy on the debate floor

He doesn't have to debate her...

He just has to say what she stands for.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:31 PM
The key with Hillary is she needs to be asked hard non-scripted questions where she has to think on her feet. I think that will happen in the general election and she will be exposed.

noa
08-01-2007, 08:31 PM
He doesn't have to debate her...

He just has to say what she stands for.

Yeah, but you were talking about a debate. Maybe he can convince America he's the better candidate when he's out on the trail, but in an organized debate, she'll be able to handle her own.

noa
08-01-2007, 08:33 PM
The key with Hillary is she needs to be asked hard non-scripted questions where she has to think on her feet. I think that will happen in the general election and she will be exposed.

You don't think she can think on her feet? One thing you have to admit is that the Clinton camp is very good at running a campaign, and that includes prepping her to think on her feet.
As for exposing her, that's a real possibility. Like I said earlier, she has very high unfavorable ratings, which doesn't bode well for her this early.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Once Rudy is on stage debating her... he will crush her.

Yeah, he could call her out like he did Ron Paul. That made Rudy look brilliant.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 08:35 PM
First I like, no I love Obama's stance on this because this is exactly what I would do. If Pakistan doesn't hunt down and kill AQ and Osama on their own land then we should put all of our effort doing it for them and **** em if they don't want us in there.

As far as Hillary debating Rudy recxjake, Hillary will hold her own if Rudy doesn't quit first.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:37 PM
You don't think she can think on her feet? One thing you have to admit is that the Clinton camp is very good at running a campaign, and that includes prepping her to think on her feet.
As for exposing her, that's a real possibility. Like I said earlier, she has very high unfavorable ratings, which doesn't bode well for her this early.

No, I think she can think on her feet but she will be exposed when she tells us what she really thinks. She's a closet socialist and is weak on Defense and taxes.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:38 PM
First I like, no I love Obama's stance on this because this is exactly what I would do. If Pakistan doesn't hunt down and kill AQ and Osama on their own land then we should put all of our effort doing it for them and **** em if they don't want us in there.

As far as Hillary debating Rudy recxjake, Hillary will hold her own if Rudy doesn't quit first.


You have no idea what you are talking about regarding Pakistan.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 08:40 PM
First I like, no I love Obama's stance on this because this is exactly what I would do. If Pakistan doesn't hunt down and kill AQ and Osama on their own land then we should put all of our effort doing it for them and **** em if they don't want us in there.

That's exactly how I feel.

I find it hilarious that some people who've been backing the Iraq War are bashing Obama for wanting to hold Pakistan responsible.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 08:41 PM
You have no idea what you are talking about regarding Pakistan.

Sure I do. They haven't done squat fighting AQ in a couple of years and they basically allowed AQ to live and train and now AQ is back to full strength like they were before 9/11.

noa
08-01-2007, 08:43 PM
No, I think she can think on her feet but she will be exposed when she tells us what she really thinks. She's a closet socialist and is weak on Defense and taxes.

But that's the thing we've seen from previous Clinton campaigns. She won't say what she really thinks, she'll say what it takes to get elected. If she's accused of being a socialist or weak on defense, she'll have a good response. The Clinton camp has always been able to say what it takes to win people over, and I'm assuming that will continue simply because she's run a pretty good campaign so far. Despite the fact that she is raising less money than Obama, has fewer donors, and has much higher unfavorable ratings, she is way ahead in the polls. I don't like it, but her campaign team is very effective.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:44 PM
Sure I do. They haven't done squat fighting AQ in a couple of years and they basically allowed AQ to live and train and now AQ is back to full strength like they were before 9/11.

Well, that's the talking point. You're like a small fish that swallowed the hook all down to your a-hole.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 08:44 PM
Plus India is one of America's strongest allies in that region. If Pakistan gets out of line India will put them back in line...quickly and with force

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:46 PM
Plus India is one of America's strongest allies in that region. If Pakistan gets out of line India will put them back in line...quickly and with force

Listen. You can't destabilize Pakistan. They have nukes. Do you want to see a regional nuclear war? Wake up!

recxjake
08-01-2007, 08:48 PM
First I like, no I love Obama's stance on this because this is exactly what I would do. If Pakistan doesn't hunt down and kill AQ and Osama on their own land then we should put all of our effort doing it for them and **** em if they don't want us in there.

As far as Hillary debating Rudy recxjake, Hillary will hold her own if Rudy doesn't quit first.



ROFL

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 08:48 PM
Well, that's the talking point. You're like a small fish that swallowed the hook all down to your a-hole.

:rolleyes:

Is that why Bush and Cheney both have openely criticized Pakistan for not doing shit against AQ in the last year or so?

Cheney's unannounced stopover en route to Afghanistan came as British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett also held talks with Musharraf and expressed concern about suspected militant safe havens near the Afghan frontier.

"Cheney expressed U.S. apprehensions of regrouping of al-Qaida in the tribal areas and called for concerted efforts in countering the threat," according to a faxed statement from the presidential office.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 08:50 PM
Listen. You can't destabilize Pakistan. They have nukes. Do you want to see a regional nuclear war? Wake up!

Fitting that's your reasoning for not going into Pakistan when that was our reason for going into Iraq.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:51 PM
:rolleyes:

Is that why Bush and Cheney both have openely criticized Pakistan for not doing shit against AQ in the last year or so?

Public criticism and working behind the scenes with Musharaf is fine. Threatening to invade them is not acceptable and would destablize the region. We can get more done working with them covertly.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 08:51 PM
Listen. You can't destabilize Pakistan. They have nukes. Do you want to see a regional nuclear war? Wake up!

No I don't want a nuclear war but if Pakistan is going to stand by and do nothing about AQ in their land it is up to us to do something about it.

Yes there are risks such as destabilizing Pakistan and the militants over throwing Musharraf but what other options do we have.

Do we just sit back and let AQ do whatever they want from a safe haven in Pakistan?

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:53 PM
No I don't want a nuclear war but if Pakistan is going to stand by and do nothing about AQ in their land it is up to us to do something about it.

Yes there are risks such as destabilizing Pakistan and the militants over throwing Musharraf but what other options do we have.

Do we just sit back and let AQ do whatever they want from a safe haven in Pakistan?


Listen, we are doing something about it. Don't buy BS. Do you really think Bush and the military are ignoring an AQ stronghold? Just because you don't hear about it in the media doesn't mean it's not happening.

noa
08-01-2007, 08:56 PM
Public criticism and working behind the scenes with Musharaf is fine. Threatening to invade them is not acceptable and would destablize the region. We can get more done working with them covertly.

I don't think he was threatening a full scale invasion.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

I think its pretty hard to argue with that. Honestly, if a Republican said that, I bet all the conservatives on this board would be applauding him. But the fact that it came out of Obama's mouth makes it naive and irresponsible.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 08:58 PM
Listen, we are doing something about it. Don't buy BS. Do you really think Bush and the military are ignoring an AQ stronghold? Just because you don't hear about it in the media doesn't mean it's not happening.

I know there are Special Ops operating in Pakistan border area but it really hasn't put much of a dent in their operations or their training at least according to both Bush and Cheney.

If I could trust Musharraf to actually do this then it wouldn't be such a big deal but he hasn't done shit in at least 2 years and now AQ is back to full strength.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:59 PM
I don't think he was threatening a full scale invasion.



I think its pretty hard to argue with that. Honestly, if a Republican said that, I bet all the conservatives on this board would be applauding him. But the fact that it came out of Obama's mouth makes it naive and irresponsible.

It's all propaganda. His comments are likely the result of a meeting with a focus group. Think how stupid he sounds. He wants to leave Iraq where there are AQ types as well and leave a power vacuum. It's just bs to sway the masses.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 08:59 PM
I know there are Special Ops operating in Pakistan border area but it really hasn't put much of a dent in their operations or their training at least according to both Bush and Cheney.

If I could trust Musharraf to actually do this then it wouldn't be such a big deal but he hasn't done shit in at least 2 years and now AQ is back to full strength.


You don't know that.

dirk digler
08-01-2007, 09:00 PM
I don't think he was threatening a full scale invasion.



I think its pretty hard to argue with that. Honestly, if a Republican said that, I bet all the conservatives on this board would be applauding him. But the fact that it came out of Obama's mouth makes it naive and irresponsible.

Yep I can't believe any Republican would laugh at this.

If we have intel on Osama Bin Laden whereabouts and Pakistan doesn't do anything about it I can't imagine any reasonable person would say that we shouldn't go after him in Pakistan.

noa
08-01-2007, 09:03 PM
It's all propaganda. His comments are likely the result of a meeting with a focus group. Think how stupid he sounds. He wants to leave Iraq where there are AQ types as well and leave a power vacuum. It's just bs to sway the masses.

Well, that's all an election really is anyway. Think about Rudy continually saying that he wants to stay on offense while the Dems want go back to pre 9/11 days. To me, that sounds just as stupid as Obama's line sounds to you. This is what we have with our modern election system. No real debates, just stupid soundbytes and lines that play well with focus groups, like you said.

Bring back the Lincoln/Douglas debate days!

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 09:09 PM
Well, that's all an election really is anyway. Think about Rudy continually saying that he wants to stay on offense while the Dems want go back to pre 9/11 days. To me, that sounds just as stupid as Obama's line sounds to you. This is what we have with our modern election system. No real debates, just stupid soundbytes and lines that play well with focus groups, like you said.

Bring back the Lincoln/Douglas debate days!

I agree. The debate is at an all time low level. It's simplistic.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:11 PM
Well, that's all an election really is anyway. Think about Rudy continually saying that he wants to stay on offense while the Dems want go back to pre 9/11 days. To me, that sounds just as stupid as Obama's line sounds to you. This is what we have with our modern election system. No real debates, just stupid soundbytes and lines that play well with focus groups, like you said.

Bring back the Lincoln/Douglas debate days!

Welcome to two weeks ago....

http://www.drudge.com/news/96679/giuliani-us-should-hit-al-qaeda

My point is that Obama... a lefty.... who is strongly supported by the anti war crowd... is saying this... ROFL

7-20-07

According to Giuliani's take on the new National Intelligence Estimate:

"I said it a long time ago ... America is too consumed with Iraq," he said. "We've got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we've got to multitask. We've got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We've got to talk about Iran -- Iran is more dangerous than Iraq -- and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan."

He said that might involve reorganizing United Nations forces, committing more U.S. resources, considering U.S.-led airstrikes on al-Qaeda targets in northern Pakistan or taking a tougher line with Musharraf -- or pursuing all those steps.

Giuliani expressed little patience with the Pakistani president, who last fall brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in northern Pakistan that let them police their own territories. The White House said this week that the deal helped open the way for al-Qaeda to rebuild its infrastructure.

"Musharraf is important to us to the extent that he helps us remove this existential threat to him and to us," Giuliani said.

"And to the extent that he recognizes that it's an existential threat to us and to him, he's valuable to us. To the extent that he doesn't, he isn't," Giuliani said.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:14 PM
I honestly believe he will be Hillary's running mate.

Which is too bad.

Ms. Clinton is going to be our next Pres - which, imo, is an unfortunate portrait of the current state of US politics.But better than what the Republican appear ready to offer us.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 09:16 PM
Welcome to two weeks ago....

http://www.drudge.com/news/96679/giuliani-us-should-hit-al-qaeda

My point is that Obama... a lefty.... who is strongly supported by the anti war crowd... is saying this... ROFL

Anti-Iraq War does not mean Anti-War.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:18 PM
I don't know recxjake, Hillary is a very good debater. That doesn't make her a great candidate, but I'm sure she could stand up to Rudy on the debate floorI actually think Hillary would wipe the floor with Rudy, she is a masterful debater and can speak on every topic fluently much like her husband Bill. Rudy is a one show pony when it comes to speaking, get him off 9-11 and he is pitiful.

noa
08-01-2007, 09:19 PM
Welcome to two weeks ago....

:spock:

I read that when you pasted it the first time. Not sure how its a response to my post...

I was talking about the rhetoric of a campaign, so you responded with more campaign rhetoric.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:21 PM
I actually think Hillary would wipe the floor with Rudy, she is a masterful debater and can speak on every topic fluently much like her husband Bill. Rudy is a one show pony when it comes to speaking, get him off 9-11 and he is pitiful.

He got great reviews speaking on healthcare today....

The Gallup Poll: Public Confidence in Presidential Hopefuls on Key 2008 Election Issues

Trust in candidates to handle the war in Iraq

Rudy Giuliani 55%
John McCain 55%
Barack Obama 54%
Hillary Clinton 51%
John Edwards 50%
Fred Thompson 39%
Mitt Romney 37%
Among Republicans only, Giuliani topped this list at 75%, followed by McCain at 67%, Thompson with 57% and Romney, 49%.

Trust in candidates to handle terrorism

Rudy Giuliani 69%
John McCain 66%
Hillary Clinton 55%
Barack Obama 53%
John Edwards 48%
Fred Thompson 42%
Mitt Romney 38%
Among Republicans only, Giuliani topped this list at 83%, followed by McCain at 76%, Thompson with 59% and Romney, 51%.

Trust in candidates to handle the healthcare system

Hillary Clinton 65%
Barack Obama 61%
John Edwards 54%
Rudy Giuliani 52%
John McCain 45%
Mitt Romney 36%
Fred Thompson 35%
Among Republicans only, Giuliani topped this list at 71%, followed by McCain at 58%, Thompson with 52% and Romney, 45%.

Trust in candidates to handle the economy

Barack Obama 62%
Hillary Clinton 61%
Rudy Giuliani 60%
John McCain 53%
John Edwards 51%
Mitt Romney 40%
Fred Thompson 39%
Among Republicans only, Giuliani topped this list at 79%, followed by McCain at 66%, Thompson with 57% and Romney, 53%.

Survey of 1,011 American adults was conducted July 23-26. The percentages reflect a combination of those who responded by saying a “great deal” or “fair amount.” The maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 09:22 PM
Why do you waste your time copying and pasting long articles that no one's going to read?

You're allowed to state your own opinion every once in a while. One that you came up with all by yourself.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:24 PM
You have no idea what you are talking about regarding Pakistan.

He might not but I do and Obama's only error was say publicly what he should actually do privately with special forces as President.


Provided that dipshit Robert Novak does not expose it.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:25 PM
Anti-Iraq War does not mean Anti-War.

BS... you think the anti war Dems want to invade another country... even if just airstrikes... All I see around Iowa City are bumpers with War is not the Answer, with Obama 08 right next to it.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:25 PM
Why do you waste your time copying and pasting long articles that no one's going to read?

You're allowed to state your own opinion every once in a while. One that you came up with all by yourself.Because all he ever does when he has stated his own opinion is make an assclown out of himself.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 09:27 PM
BS... you think the anti war Dems want to invade another country... even if just airstrikes... All I see around Iowa City are bumbers with War is not the Answer, with Obama 08 right next to it.

I assume you then think anyone who is Pro-Iraq War is Pro-Any and Every War.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:27 PM
I assume you then think anyone who is Pro-Iraq War is Pro-Any and Every War.

No, Obama's support is very much anti all war.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 09:28 PM
He might not but I do and Obama's only error was say publicly what he should actually do privately with special forces as President.


Provided that dipshit Robert Novak does not expose it.

That's quite a mistake considering he's running for the most powerful job on the planet. Words do mean something even when you are a candidate for office.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:29 PM
But none of this even matters...

Hillary is leading by 13% nationally... winning in New Hampshire, and S. Carolina.... and eventually will take the lead from John Edwards in Iowa.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:30 PM
Public criticism and working behind the scenes with Musharaf is fine. Threatening to invade them is not acceptable and would destablize the region. We can get more done working with them covertly.We should not have to work with them, fine if they will cooperate but f*ck them if they won't. Just don't be public with our actions so Mushareef can survive.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 09:30 PM
No, Obama's support is very much anti all war.

So they wouldn't want us to take any action if our country was actively being invaded? They'd be against military action there? Interesting.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:32 PM
That's quite a mistake considering he's running for the most powerful job on the planet. Words do mean something even when you are a candidate for office.

In one way I agree with you, if I thought he had a chance of swaying Republican moderates. He does not. So he has to go for as many of the far left as he can because Hillary is weak there.

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2007, 09:33 PM
We should not have to work with them, fine if they will cooperate but f*ck them if they won't. Just don't be public with our actions so Mushareef can survive.

You know I agree with that. But it can't be said publically.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:33 PM
So they wouldn't want us to take any action if our country was actively being invaded? They'd be against military action there? Interesting.

Wouldn't suprise me.... they want one big happy world.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 09:34 PM
Wouldn't suprise me.... they want one big happy world.

You're an idiot.

a1na2
08-01-2007, 09:35 PM
Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction to find it myself, how much money do we give away to other countries every year? This is a country that has been able to develop a nuclear weapon but we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in military support??? No wonder we can't take care of shit here and I am paying 1/2 my earnings in taxes. :cuss:

If you are in the 50% tax bracket you have plenty enough money to live on. I'm not making great money but based on what I'm making you have to be bringing in over $150,000 to start reaching the 50% tax bracket. If you are making that much how are you finding time to waste here?

|Zach|
08-01-2007, 09:37 PM
You're either with us or you're against us.

I think.

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:37 PM
You're an idiot.

Thanks.

So are you.

HolmeZz
08-01-2007, 09:37 PM
You're either with us or you're against us.

I think.

Unless you've really got nukes.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:41 PM
If you are in the 50% tax bracket you have plenty enough money to live on. I'm not making great money but based on what I'm making you have to be bringing in over $150,000 to start reaching the 50% tax bracket. If you are making that much how are you finding time to waste here?

Actually that had to be hyperbole, there is no income tax bracket higher than 37%.

Logical
08-01-2007, 09:44 PM
Wouldn't suprise me.... they want one big happy world.So can I assume Rudy wants one big unhappy world?

recxjake
08-01-2007, 09:45 PM
Obama the NEOCON... ROFL

ClevelandBronco
08-01-2007, 09:47 PM
That's exactly how I feel.

I find it hilarious that some people who've been backing the Iraq War are bashing Obama for wanting to hold Pakistan responsible.

Oh, good heavens. They're feeling again.

jAZ
08-01-2007, 09:56 PM
ROFL

A thread filled with comments criticizing Obama for saying the very thing we've all talked about on this board for 4-5 years now.

ROFL

jAZ
08-01-2007, 09:57 PM
Obama the NEOCON... ROFL
Obama... fighting the actual war on terror.

a1na2
08-02-2007, 05:32 AM
Actually that had to be hyperbole, there is no income tax bracket higher than 37%.

I knew that, my other half is a payroll accountant.

Taco John
08-02-2007, 09:34 AM
After seeing all the folks here carrying Hillary's water on this issue and parrotting "inexperience," I have to smile in smug bemusement. Bunch of brainless wonders repeating what a couple of Democrats are hoping they'll repeat. I see this, and realize how bankrupt of original thought some of these folks really are. It explains how someone like Bush can get elected.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 09:38 AM
Obama the NEOCON... ROFL
No that's Hitlary! She's a warmonger too. Despite her rhetoric to her anti-war base.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 09:40 AM
Oh, good heavens. They're feeling again.
I'll take that over a leader of the free world claiming God told him to do something.

Baby Lee
08-02-2007, 09:48 AM
How the f#ck did an article about Dems slamming Obama for his statements turn into 'Oh, look at all these Repubs slamming Obama?'

He's speaking strongly on a situation properly of strong concern. Pakistan has the rugged terrain and tribal concerns of Afghanistan, with the additional variables of a stronger, yet more precarious, central government [by that I mean the concept of central government holds more sway, while the people running that central government carry their powers precariously], and Nukes.

I prefer Giuliani's 'shift focus/increase pressure' approach above, to Obama's 'we're coming, heck or high water,' but I appreciate the central thrust of both approaches. The Paki situation is admittedly precarious, but we've been too scared for too long to tell them to be strong and stand up to evil you've allowing into your midst.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 09:55 AM
I prefer Giuliani's 'shift focus/increase pressure' approach above, to Obama's 'we're coming, heck or high water,' but I appreciate the central thrust of both approaches. The Paki situation is admittedly precarious, but we've been too scared for too long to tell them to be strong and stand up to evil you've allowing into your midst.

Actually according to Giraldi, former CIA, says Musharref has gone after and arrested more AQ than any other ally.

IMO Guiliani, McCain and Hitlary are probably the three most dangerous to lead. All three are hot heads and I don't feel safe with any of them at the helm. Thank Artemis, McCain isn't getting anywhere. And if Hitlary wins, she'll have too many other females in her cabinet creating the problem of monhtly PMS converging all at the same time because women's menstrual cycles tend to synchronize. Not good situation imo. Something to REALLY think about, with a woman leading while at war.

Taco John
08-02-2007, 09:55 AM
How the f#ck did an article about Dems slamming Obama for his statements turn into 'Oh, look at all these Repubs slamming Obama?'


Because when you read the thread, you'll notice two things:

1. The Chiefaroo's of the world are slobbering all over themselves in eager agreement with these democrats slamming Obama.

2. The Democrats in the thread are nodding in agreement with Obama saying that they'd like to see us go after Al Queda in Pakistan.


It's hilarious.

Baby Lee
08-02-2007, 10:00 AM
Because when you read the thread, you'll notice two things:

1. The Chiefaroo's of the world are slobbering all over themselves in eager agreement with these democrats slamming Obama.

2. The Democrats in the thread are nodding in agreement with Obama saying that they'd like to see us go after Al Queda in Pakistan.


It's hilarious.
Ahhh Sooo.

Repubs = Chiefaroo
Dems = not Chiefaroo

That's pretty much how I see the world, too. ;)

Actually, I'm surprised at BEP's demure response. First I heard of this, my initial thought was 'Uh-ohh, BEP's gonna shit. . . '

dirk digler
08-02-2007, 10:01 AM
Because when you read the thread, you'll notice two things:

1. The Chiefaroo's of the world are slobbering all over themselves in eager agreement with these democrats slamming Obama.

2. The Democrats in the thread are nodding in agreement with Obama saying that they'd like to see us go after Al Queda in Pakistan.


It's hilarious.

1. Agree

2. Who doesn't think we shouldn't go after AQ in Pakistan?

noa
08-02-2007, 10:05 AM
Actually, I'm surprised at BEP's demure response. First I heard of this, my initial thought was 'Uh-ohh, BEP's gonna shit. . . '

Well, I don't think it takes a neocon to say that the U.S. should target high-level AQ meetings in Pakistan if Musharraf won't go after them. Most major candidates would support this type of action. Probably the only ones who wouldn't are Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul.

I do worry that Obama would be open to war with Iran. I hope that isn't the case, but BEP mentioned this as a possibility earlier I believe.

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 10:11 AM
... and Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is for going after binLaden's AQ. Always has been and considers his 9/11 a criminal despicable act.

Don't know how he'd exactly do it in Pakistan, where the official govt IS our ally in this war, even if he has some shortcomings....actually he's between a rock and hard place with his population's beliefs. So I think that would be the only difference here.

I also support going after BL's AQ too and always have. Pakistan just does not present an easy B or W way on how to go about it without making Pakistan worse, never mind what Obama says. More specifics, surely lacking, is needed.
I'd want to see some objective intel....from folks like Michael Sheuer.

Baby Lee
08-02-2007, 10:29 AM
I also support going after BL's AQ too and always have.
PLEASE!! Spell out Bin Laden, or at least use OBL. ;)

noa
08-02-2007, 10:32 AM
PLEASE!! Spell out Bin Laden, or at least use OBL. ;)

I thought she was talking about your apple quiche

Baby Lee
08-02-2007, 10:35 AM
I thought she was talking about your apple quiche
That broad has been after my apple quiche for years. ROFL

BucEyedPea
08-02-2007, 10:47 AM
I do worry that Obama would be open to war with Iran. I hope that isn't the case, but BEP mentioned this as a possibility earlier I believe.
Yeah! He also gave money via some PAC to Lieberman when he ran against Lamont. That surprised me. But he's not taking pac money now? Maybe that was a one time thing...but why Lieberman and not Lamont? Lieberman's a neocon of sorts.

But apple quiche?
Sorry BL about that abbreviation...but I haven't been here for years. Just one.

HolmeZz
08-02-2007, 10:49 AM
Lamont was a one-issue douchebag.

Radar Chief
08-02-2007, 10:58 AM
Lamont was a one-issue douchebag.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/3101/truck.gif

Lamont, you big dummy!

Brock
08-02-2007, 11:56 AM
Obama said in grilling with AP reporter Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance'... 'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians' Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table'...

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Cochise
08-02-2007, 12:21 PM
I don't think this really represents a difference between what other candidates are saying. I haven't read the whole thread, but I think all of them are saying they would push for Pakistan to either be more aggressive or open the doors to our military operating in their territory.

I think it's kind of a silly debate, because first of all if Al Queda is there, you can be sure we've already got ghosts operating there whether Pakistan approves of it or not. I tend to think that for popular reasons the government takes the stance that it does, but looks the other way while we do what we do.

I seriously doubt that there is intelligence in the area that we don't have the manpower to act on, or that they are being anything less than 100% aggressive with what they know.

The only benefit, as far as I can see, of doing something differently would be if you were going to just flood the region with tens of thousands of soldiers and zerg them, so to speak. It's curious to me that the same people saying that the troop surge had no hope of working against Al Queda in Iraq thinks it's the right answer in Afghan/Pakistan.

Combined with what he said today about there being no circumstances where he would use nuclear weapons (presumably, "no circumstance" means not even if we were attacked with nuclear weapons by another country), I don't think he's sending a clear message on defense nor is he presenting a figure of strength.

I think Hillary is going to win this flexing contest handily.

mlyonsd
08-02-2007, 06:48 PM
Because when you read the thread, you'll notice two things:

1. The Chiefaroo's of the world are slobbering all over themselves in eager agreement with these democrats slamming Obama.

2. The Democrats in the thread are nodding in agreement with Obama saying that they'd like to see us go after Al Queda in Pakistan.


It's hilarious.

Pssst. The correct answer is Obama is flailing.

When a candidate opens himself so easily that his opponents can drop a hammer on his head it's evident he's attempting to set himself appart.

It might work, it might not. But in the end this is flailing.

Adept Havelock
08-02-2007, 07:29 PM
Pssst. The correct answer is Obama is flailing.

When a candidate opens himself so easily that his opponents can drop a hammer on his head it's evident he's attempting to set himself appart.

It might work, it might not. But in the end this is flailing.

Which in no way changes the fact that TJ's actually correct with his assesment of responses to the original post.

ChiefaRoo
08-02-2007, 07:42 PM
The simple fact is Obama is too young and inexperienced for the Dems to nominate him. He's toast and I'm willing to take any bets on it.

Logical
08-02-2007, 08:31 PM
...

The only benefit, as far as I can see, of doing something differently would be if you were going to just flood the region with tens of thousands of soldiers and zerg them, so to speak. It's curious to me that the same people saying that the troop surge had no hope of working against Al Queda in Iraq thinks it's the right answer in Afghan/Pakistan.
....

I don't think we should invade Pakistan or even put thousands of troops there, but I think it is non-sense to pretend we won't use special forces when it is in our interests and our intelligence warrants it.

Taco John
08-02-2007, 08:51 PM
Pssst. The correct answer is Obama is flailing.

When a candidate opens himself so easily that his opponents can drop a hammer on his head it's evident he's attempting to set himself appart.

It might work, it might not. But in the end this is flailing.



If by flailing, you mean saying things that people resonate and agree with, then sure. Obama is opening up a can of worms, to be sure... But he read the label first. He's not going this direction without knowing where his constituents are on the matter, not to mention a lot of Republicans who have questions about Pakistan.

recxjake
08-02-2007, 09:18 PM
The simple fact is Obama is too young and inexperienced for the Dems to nominate him. He's toast and I'm willing to take any bets on it.


I 100% agree... he will NOT be the nomiee.... He is going to have one hell of a Senate Re-election campagin war chest to work with though!

Taco John
08-02-2007, 10:08 PM
If it's a race between Giuliani and Hillary, Ron Paul has a shot to steal the whole thing.

wazu
08-02-2007, 11:46 PM
If it's a race between Giuliani and Hillary, Ron Paul has a shot to steal the whole thing.

Huh? As what, a fourth or fifth party?

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 12:06 AM
Ahhh Sooo.

Repubs = Chiefaroo
Dems = not Chiefaroo

That's pretty much how I see the world, too. ;)

Actually, I'm surprised at BEP's demure response. First I heard of this, my initial thought was 'Uh-ohh, BEP's gonna shit. . . '

For the record even though I vote mostly Republican I consider myself an independent thinker who values traditional American values and history over petty party affiliation. Sure, not all of US history has been positive but a great deal of it is. I was against Bush and McCain and the rest of the Republicans who were for Amnesty. I think Bush's handling of the post war strategy has be average to poor. I also think that some in the Republican party lost their way by being corrupted from being in power so long. That being said Bush is right on Terror and he is right on Taxes and that's better than any of the Democractic Pygmy/socialists that oppose him now in the Congress. I'm no propagandist guys. I'm telling you what I think based on my own conclusions after taking in lots of information from all different forms of the media and from my personal life experience which has allowed me to see the world and different peoples via travel.

ClevelandBronco
08-03-2007, 12:07 AM
Ron Paul couldn't steal this election if he had nukes.

ChiefaRoo
08-03-2007, 12:09 AM
If it's a race between Giuliani and Hillary, Ron Paul has a shot to steal the whole thing.


You are forgetting Thompson. He could play a major factor depending on his grassroots organization and his strategy in going after Hillary.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 11:11 AM
I just had to note this for all of the knee jerk "inexperienced flailing" parroters of Democratic talking points:

From the Wall Street Journal
Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama is taking heat from liberals and conservatives alike for his comment that he wouldn't hesitate to send U.S. troops into Pakistan to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders. Actually, it's the best thing we've heard yet from the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois.

...

Mr. Obama's comments also showed some welcome realism about the problem that confronts the U.S. in Pakistan. Following Mr. Musharraf's ill-conceived truce last September with Taliban-connected warlords in the Pakistani province of Waziristan, terrorist raids into neighboring Afghanistan rose threefold. Al Qaeda has also been able to substantially reconstitute itself in the area, according to the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. If Pakistan is unwilling or unable to police its own territory, then no prudent U.S. President can afford to rule out special forces raids or Predator strikes, or more.

...

Still, Mr. Obama's willingness to draw appropriate conclusions from realities in Pakistan stands in refreshing contrast to his Democratic opponents. Tragic as a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be, it would be compounded if Democrats draw the lesson never again to use or threaten force abroad. By distancing himself from his party's pacifist wing, Mr. Obama is growing up as a candidate.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118610868429787031.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

recxjake
08-03-2007, 11:15 AM
You are forgetting Thompson. He could play a major factor depending on his grassroots organization and his strategy in going after Hillary.

It's August, he has yet to do anything... Iowa Caucus is in 5 months... other campaigns have been in Iowa for 6 months already... it will be hard to break ground.

go bowe
08-03-2007, 12:24 PM
Pssst. The correct answer is Obama is flailing.

When a candidate opens himself so easily that his opponents can drop a hammer on his head it's evident he's attempting to set himself appart.

It might work, it might not. But in the end this is flailing.flailing?

i think hussein is smart to provoke controversies, which get him face time on the newscasts...

and it doesn't cost him anything to do it that way...

Sully
08-03-2007, 07:09 PM
I hate to be all rexjake here, but... I have to post this memo. At this point, I will admit it, I am an Obama fanboy.
I like the response. Fact is, though, thoughts like this don't translate to the masses. It's not near "bumper sticker" enough...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/03/303197.aspx

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the wake of the criticism that Obama has received for saying he wouldn't use nuclear weapons to take out Al Qaeda in Pakistan -- and for his other recent controversial statements on foreign policy -- the Obama campaign has released a memo contrasting Obama's approach with the Washington Establishment's "broken way of doing things."

In the memo, Obama adviser Samantha Power -- the founding executive director of Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy -- writes: "Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want."

"On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq."

Below is the entire memo...

August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

--The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
--The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
-- The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

-- Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
-- Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
-- Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

HolmeZz
07-20-2008, 10:54 PM
August 1, 2007.... the day Obama lost any chance for a WH bid.

A day that will live in infamy.

Once Rudy is on stage debating her... he will crush her.

FYI... Rudy is polling the strongest against Hillary... Northeastern blue states are in play for him, and California.

Yum.

ClevelandBronco
07-20-2008, 11:02 PM
A day that will live in infamy...

You really need to get a new team of writers.