Barack? WTF are you on?

[kosar]

Shareefs government is already extremely wobbly and very vulnerable to overthrow and this clown is talking about invading if he becomes president. Wow.

----------------------------------------





Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers a speech about terrorism

Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

Tom Baldwin in Washington

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists ? even without permission from that country?s Government.

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: ?There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won?t act, we will.?

The speech to the Woodrow Wilson Centre was designed to shore up his credentials as a potential commander-in-chief by backing a pre-emptive military action that even President Bush has so far refused to order.

Pakistan, a key ally of the US in the war on terrorism, reacted angrily, advising all American politicians to refrain from inflammatory remarks. ?These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring,? Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said. ?Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility.?


Much of Mr Obama?s speech yesterday appeared to be aimed directly at Mrs Clinton ? without mentioning her by name. Mr Obama once again highlighted his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002 ? when she voted to authorise military action ? while also implicitly attacking her view that America was safer than it had been before September 11, 2001.

?Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11. It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11,? he said.

 

[smurphy]

He is talking himself right out of the race. International inexperience really showing. ...Then again, Dubya didn't even know who Shareef was when he was running and it didn't stop him from winning.

I think it's Hillary's nomination to lose. ...And she won't lose it.

 

[Chadman]

I assume he will have complete support on this issue from Wayne and Weasel. We must take the fight to the terrorists, right? At least he has the right idea...to actually go after the dude that killed our people. Kind of a novel approach, if difficult to sell.

 

[auspice2]

He's going to be joining O.J. hunting for the man that killed Nicole if he pulls another one of these blunders.

 

[Nosigar]

Damn Neocon.
Where's Stevie when you need him?

 

[djv]

At least hes got the right area of the world. But you just don't say it so laud.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

In case anyone wanted to hear what Obama said.

It's a pretty good speech. He blended Pakistan and Afghanistan in parts as if they were the same which is confusing, but there's not much that I disagree with. He's not talking about attacking Pakistan, just bombing terrorists camps on foreign soil.

 

[smurphy]

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

In case anyone wanted to hear what Obama said.

It's a pretty good speech. He blended Pakistan and Afghanistan in parts as if they were the same which is confusing, but there's not much that I disagree with. He's not talking about attacking Pakistan, just bombing terrorists camps on foreign soil.

I don't know, bombing terrorists sounds a little too efficient. He should reconsider the idea of invading a sovereign nation and getting in a protracted overseas war. That way we can spend more money and lose more lives - all the while losing allied support. That style is all the rage these days.

 

[The Sponge]

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

In case anyone wanted to hear what Obama said.

It's a pretty good speech. He blended Pakistan and Afghanistan in parts as if they were the same which is confusing, but there's not much that I disagree with. He's not talking about attacking Pakistan, just bombing terrorists camps on foreign soil.

Kosar most likely got his NY post spin with a little Fox News nightcap. Didn't we bomb over there a little while back and take out a few terrorist? Why wasn't anyone up in arms when we did that? If we would have done this in the beginning and got this guy we might be look at as the power we once were. That is even if the guy exist. Anyone know where the Anthrax poisoner is hiding? Maybe someone should look into that company that sells Csypro the antidote.

 

[kosar]

Kosar most likely got his NY post spin with a little Fox News nightcap. Didn't we bomb over there a little while back and take out a few terrorist? Why wasn't anyone up in arms when we did that? If we would have done this in the beginning and got this guy we might be look at as the power we once were. That is even if the guy exist. Anyone know where the Anthrax poisoner is hiding? Maybe someone should look into that company that sells Csypro the antidote.

We used a predator drone in an operation in conjunction with the Pakistani military with the governments cooperation.

Obama is pre-emptively threatening to send troops into Pakistan with or without the governments permission.

That's a big difference, especially when you're talking about a government that's hanging on by a thread as it is.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Support from me Chad--you got to be shitting me--as Matt said what an idiotic move--

Did you see reports from Pakistan gov yet--isn't pretty--Admin spends years building up allies--and these idiots try to destroy them.

You will find one constant on dem candidates and war--the only ones they are for are those not being fought.


I will say this though--if there was one candidate on both parties that is head and shoulders above on others on defence and military matters
--it would be Biden--

 

[Eddie Haskell]

I don't thing the Republicans will go along with it. Not enough oil in Pakistan.

Eddie

 

[auspice2]

I don't thing the Republicans will go along with it. Not enough oil in Pakistan.

Eddie

When conceptualizing the Neocon's foreign policies, it's always nice to sing a verse of 'Alice's Restuarant' before jumping to any conclusions of what they will or won't do. And remembering this little tidbit doesn't hurt either.


And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Was that taken from Monica Goodlings application to the DOJ?

Eddie

 

[auspice2]

Was that taken from Monica Goodlings application to the DOJ?

Eddie

LOL....love it!!

 

[The Sponge]

We used a predator drone in an operation in conjunction with the Pakistani military with the governments cooperation.

Obama is pre-emptively threatening to send troops into Pakistan with or without the governments permission.

That's a big difference, especially when you're talking about a government that's hanging on by a thread as it is.

This so called fragile gov't has been in power for a pretty decent amount of time. This might be another myth's like when i heard Iran had troops in Iraq. Another neocon myth. Sounds like the president in Pakistan, who came to power very questionably, only has 1 armed gaurd if you listen to what our gov't say's

 

[kosar]

This so called fragile gov't has been in power for a pretty decent amount of time. This might be another myth's like when i heard Iran had troops in Iraq. Another neocon myth. Sounds like the president in Pakistan, who came to power very questionably, only has 1 armed gaurd if you listen to what our gov't say's

Sponge,

It's a fact, and has been for a good while, that his hold is very tenuous. It's a fact that he's survived at least 4 assassination attempts. He is running a secular government in a fervently Islamic country. He has teetered on the edge since he *kind of* became our ally after 9/11.

If we put troops in that country (not small scale special ops or surgical strikes against specific targets as we are doing now, but a relatively large-scale operation with boots on the ground), then he will be overthrown. Period.

And unlike Iraq was even close to having(as in they didn't even have a program in 2003, just a 'desire' somewhere down the road ) , Pakistan has nukes.

An overthrow in that country would be 20x more dangerous for the world than this nut in Iran will ever be.

Ya know, after responding to you, it gives me the same feeling like after I used to respond to Manson and Spibble Spabble.

You clowns NEVER, not once, have had a criticism of 'your' party about anything and you have NEVER had the slightest praise about anything that the other party does. I think those two idiots might predate you, but do a search.

If Bush had thrown that out there about sending troops into Pakistan with the same huge risks of the government getting overthrown, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

Hey, how about Baracks latest speech yesterday, where within 2 minutes, after being asked about whether he would use nukes against terrorists, he had three different answers:

1. No, in no circumstances would I ever use nukes.

2. Well, not if civilians are involved.

3. Scratch all that. This topic isn't up for discussion.

Somewhat paraphrased, but not by much. I'll try to find a link.

With his, 'ill meet with any head of state without pre-conditions', 'i'll unilaterally invade Pakistan if they don't do enough', 'yes, no maybe so' on the nukes, he's taken himself out of the race, I believe.

He's a great speaker, very charismatic and has a good heart, but no way he's ready for the White House.

All Hillary has to do is basically shut up, don't screw up in some scandal, and it's hers.

Edwards can just throw it in now. This guy. Please.

 

[The Sponge]

Sponge,

It's a fact, and has been for a good while, that his hold is very tenuous. It's a fact that he's survived at least 4 assassination attempts. He is running a secular government in a fervently Islamic country. He has teetered on the edge since he *kind of* became our ally after 9/11.

If we put troops in that country (not small scale special ops or surgical strikes against specific targets as we are doing now, but a relatively large-scale operation with boots on the ground), then he will be overthrown. Period.

And unlike Iraq was even close to having(as in they didn't even have a program in 2003, just a 'desire' somewhere down the road ) , Pakistan has nukes.

An overthrow in that country would be 20x more dangerous for the world than this nut in Iran will ever be.

Ya know, after responding to you, it gives me the same feeling like after I used to respond to Manson and Spibble Spabble.

You clowns NEVER, not once, have had a criticism of 'your' party about anything and you have NEVER had the slightest praise about anything that the other party does. I think those two idiots might predate you, but do a search.

If Bush had thrown that out there about sending troops into Pakistan with the same huge risks of the government getting overthrown, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

Hey, how about Baracks latest speech yesterday, where within 2 minutes, after being asked about whether he would use nukes against terrorists, he had three different answers:

1. No, in no circumstances would I ever use nukes.

2. Well, not if civilians are involved.

3. Scratch all that. This topic isn't up for discussion.

Somewhat paraphrased, but not by much. I'll try to find a link.

With his, 'ill meet with any head of state without pre-conditions', 'i'll unilaterally invade Pakistan if they don't do enough', 'yes, no maybe so' on the nukes, he's taken himself out of the race, I believe.

He's a great speaker, very charismatic and has a good heart, but no way he's ready for the White House.

All Hillary has to do is basically shut up, don't screw up in some scandal, and it's hers.

Edwards can just throw it in now. This guy. Please.

My party? Right now im voting for Paul so your my party gig is a joke. Hey your history here that i know o,f is that you get easily conned, so i wouldn't be surprised if this isn't another time. Sorry we can't be centrist like you. What you are is a twist in the way the wind blows that day. A centrist :mj07: :mj07:

 

[gardenweasel]

"obomber".....

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/03/politics/main3130600.shtml

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adi

Pakistani Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri

(AP) Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.

Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.

"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 will not act, we will."

The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.

In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.

It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.

Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.