Barack Obama, who would not keep troops in Iraq even to prevent a genocide, would be happy to send them to Pakistan:
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
Despite the media lovefest with and slobbering over Obama, he’s finally starting to show how really wet behind the ears he is. The man who has not even served a full term in the Senate (and whose prior experience includes time in the Illinois state legislature), yet has the hubris to believe he should be president, has more than met his match. He has now been goaded by Hillary into showing how strong he really can be by postulating about using force here or there.
The merits of his ideas on this issue aside, he is clearly on the defensive. The first vote has not yet been cast and, by falling into the Clintonistas’ trap, he proves her point - he’s naive.
Despise Hillary and her gang all you want, but I predict they will shred Obama before it is all over. He hasn’t got a clue what awaits His Arrogance.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
34 Responses to “Obama being led to slaughter (politically)”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Well stated, Rick.
Barack the Magic Negro…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXz2xaLNMQ&mode=related&search=
You can call the Clintons lots of bad things (justifiably so), but they are as shrewd politically as anyone who’s ever been involved in politics.
Obama had better get the “race card” ready to play because the HELLary bunch is just warming up. His experience in the political arena is starting to show. The “newness” is starting to ware off and Obama needs Jesse and Al on his side. Well, I guess all is NOT fair in love and war.
I’ve been wrong before picking political winners/losers, but I have never been able to take Obama seriously as a contender. There is something lacking there that I haven’t been able to put my finger on.
5 texpat
No gravitas?
You can rest assured that the Clinton war machine will use no more force than is absolutely necessary to grind Osama Obama Yomama into fine particles.
That’s incredible! You guys who valiently cheered for Bush during his John Wayne moments of “Wanted, dead or alive”, “you’re either with us or against us”, and “…will hunt him down wherever they are…” can’t take it that someone else says that they will do what should have been done in the first place?
Why does this guy have “Hubris” for running for president? Are the only people that should run for president be those who are son’s of politicians, former mayors when cities happened to be attacked? Actors?
I don’t say this as any fan of Obama, because at this point I’m not adequately informed to support any particular candidate on either side of the aisle.
The question though, to those here who have always supported the “be on offense” side of battling terrorism and in general disdain for all things muslim, what do you care if there is genocide in Iraq after we redeploy and why wouldn’t you support someone who advocated going to where Al Qaeda is supposedly holed up? Whether given permission by their president or not?
# 5
There’s no “there” there..
What is the sense in satying in Iraq? We are just creating more “terrorists” or “freedom fighters”.
And since bush failed to get the job done in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Obama realizes what needs to be done. At least someone still wants to find Bin Laden.
War is only good and just if a Dhimmi is in charge.
Who can take a sunrise
Sprinkle it in dew
Cover it in chocolate
and a miracle or two?
The Obamaman
The Obamaman can
The Obamaman can
cause he mixes it with love
and makes the world taste good
I haven’t seen my previous comment come up yet, but, am already anticipating the response. I imagine that the response is going to be something to the effect of, “you missed the point, it doesn’t matter what he says, he’s being manipulated by Hilary politically into positions that are going to make him lose. What an amateur”
Well, that may be the case, but, once again, back to the “W” example. Why shouldn’t we want a candidate that just goes ahead and says what he would like to do? What his plan would be. For years now, I’ve heard (over and over again) from the right that the “Dems don’t have a plan! What’s your plan!” And, while the dems have presented plans, ideas, strategies, the right continuously put their hands over their ears and chose to “Stay the course”.
So, here, the guy is spelling out his plan. It might not be my plan or your plan, but, he’s laying it on the line, he’s saying something positive in my opinion (get out of the money pit that is Iraq, go chase down the guys who attacked us on 9-11, and do something to try to get world opinion and support back on our side so that we can rid the earth of this scourge (fanatical islamic terrorism).
He should be commended for the effort. He should be applauded for NOT doing the typical thing which would be to say or stand for nothing in order to avoid the political repurcussions.
Obama is just pandering for votes. He no more wants to send troops into Afghanistan or Pakistan than John Murtha.
Hillary does not have that much “political experience”. One+ terms in the Senate. She has plently of affiliation as a lawyer and being the spouse of a governor/president. Does that make her any more qualified than Obama? All of this political experience is only saying they know how to play politics, not get anything done. Many discussions have turned to getting someone more like a CEO as president since it is more like running a company as compared to legislating. Unfortunately the CEOs are too smart to get involved in the politics directly (Ross Perot proved the point) but some such as Forbes might have had a better chance. The law of averages in US history show that those that run that have been in the US Congress have lost the run for president. Hope that trend continues (unless Thompson could be an exception).
It’s not naive to think that Waziristan is a central front in the war on terror.
Nor is it naive to tell the world that the United States will not respect borders of nations that harbor terrorist training camps (as President Bush put it, we will make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them).
Some folks here may not like the messenger, but this message isn’t ridiculous, or even particularly radical so many years after the President first uttered it (except maybe to the Lefty NetRoots and apparently some members of the Reactionary Right).
Kevin:
I think you missed my point. I specifically set the merits of his idea aside. I argue his naivete in reference to him letting Hillary set the agenda, putting him on the defensive. Just what she and the Clintonistas want.
He’s looking like a guy who is, uh, inexperienced!
I don’t think anyone is talking about the message, but more the messenger.
Obama was against the war in Iraq and said earlier he would have unconditional talks with North Korea, Iran and Cuba. Why would he talk with Iran but send ground troops into Pakistan? He’s inconsistent and and the original post is right … he was bated into sounding tough by people that were saying he lacked experience.
His base doesn’t want to hear this. They want to hear peace at any price and terrorism is a policing problem not a military problem.
This will cost him in his own party … not with conservatives.
“Why would he talk with Iran but send ground troops into Pakistan?”
Because North Korea, Iran and Cuba weren’t behind 9/11, a bunch of criminals hiding out in Pakistan were. So those who believe they should be brought to justice typically think we should go there to catch them. Those who DIDN’T attack us we don’t need to invade; so we should talk to them.
RickG I think YOU, not Kevin, missed the point … by ever thinking that invading Iraq had a damn thing to do with the terrorists who attacked America. It’s strange, this administration and its supporters took their eye off the ball so long ago that now when somebody suggests going after those who attacked us, it’s considered some sort of lefty subversion. That’s bizarre to me. How in the world did that happen?
18 Grits
Try reading the point of the post again - it has nothing to do with what your babbling about.
Interesting display of tunnel vision in a few of the comments on this post. FWIW, I agree with this:
A Clinton POTUS/Obama Vice POTUS ticket for ‘08 is going to be very bad news for Republicans. Let’s face it, with Rudy and Fred being the only two real Republican candidates we’re in big trouble.
#12 Vic Obama is going to wage war on Pakistan……… nice idea. However , if he knew anything at all he would know Pakistan air space is our way to get our supplies to Iraq. We cannot fly over Iran…….. And tell me how he plans to invade….. look at Pakistan…. by sea? Look at the terrain. The leader of Pakistan has had his life threatened , what , 3 times. He is holding on by a thread, but is an ally allowing us to use his airspace. Guess what happens if we go to war with them………… And that’s why Obama is wet behind the ears and dangerous.
Let’s see:
Obama will negotiate with people who are actively inolved in killing american soliders and Iraqi babies without precondition.
He says that genocide is no big deal—preventing it is not enough of a reason to keep american troops in Iraq—a tacit admission that he knows that it WILL occur.
But–
He will invade one of our allies—one that actually has nuclear weapons and missles that will reach our bases in Iraq and on the Persian Gulf—not to mention the ones in Afghanistan.
Got it.
Golly—why didn’t we think of this before?
Somebody tell me again why letting these clowns win elections so that we can transform the Republican Party is a good idea.
Let’s not even talk about those guys who posted above who thought it is something we should have done before.
Criminy–
If we ever let these clowns start running our military——
Sarge, we would be in sorry hands indeed! God help us!
RickG - I read the post. You’re blaming Obama for taking a position you would probably at least partially agree with if you addressed its substance, but you don’t want to do that because then you might have to agree with a “liberal.” So you accuse him of having an ulterior motive for his position that you made up out of thin air and have no way of actually knowing anything about.
So who’s babbling?
Grits–
got any comment on my post?
I addressed the substance of Obama’s “plan”—you seem to think it’s a pretty good one
25 Grits
The only thing I’m “blaming” Obama for is falling into Hillary’s trap. Him taking the bait tells me he’s not ready to be President. And, who in the heck is advising this man?
10.
Please remind me: What Al Queeeeeeddddaaa attacks have occurred on US soil since the Iraq invasion?
Sarge, I didn’t see your post, what’s the title?
Personally I think Obama has the right plan six years too late. I think he’s suggesting what Bush should have done back in the day. Now, everything is all f’ed up and there are really no good options, but at least Obama’s focused on Al Quaeda instead of phantoms of manufactured liberty, to convert an Ashcroft phrase, in Iraq.
And RickG - IMO we haven’t been attacked because Osama et. al. got exactly what they wanted - the US starting an unpopular war in the Middle East. Richard Clarke said it was though Bin Laden were engaging in mind control from a mountain redoubt telling bush telepathically, “Invade Iraq, Invade Iraq”. As long as the US pursues bellicose policies in the Middle East and refuses to engage in diplomacy with nations who disagree with us, there’s no need for more attacks. They got what they wanted.
I’m sorry, Sarge, I see you’re referencing a comment above (I was looking for a post on the blog).
I think you’ve just made the best argument imaginable for why other nations should all want to possess nuclear weapons. Apparently for you it’s an absolute deterrent, even if it means letting people who attacked the US get away scot free. Am I missing something?
If Pakistan were really our ally they wouldn’t be harboring Bin Laden, IMO - you’ve expressed the REAL reason we didn’t go after the 9/11 terrorists: Pakistan’s nukes.
Gritsy, I see this term often and am curious about it:
“unpopular war in the Middle East”
Has there ever been a popular war that the US “started”?
Well, for starters, the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was near-universally supported. Iraq I also comes to mind - remember Bush’s dad going to war with an actual coalition instead of a BS one in name only? Also, though I personally opposed Clinton’s war in Bosnia, it also had wide support from our allies and at best only small opposition at home.
29
Richard Clarke? C’mon Gritsy!
Sure Richard Clarke - what’s wrong with him?
IMO Clarke got it. If the war on terror was a chess match, Bush took Bin Laden’s bait by going into Iraq and the President been scooting around with either his king in check (the Iraqi puppet government) or his queen (Great Britain’s support) in trouble ever since. Bush said we were on offense, but through a series of amateurish strategic blunders he placed us on perpetual defense. And the sad part is, his daddy knew better, which is why he didn’t oust Saddam in ‘91. Sonny Boy just wouldn’t listen. So here we are, in Quagmire City.