Redstate

First of all, enough with the hypotheticals. Here are some sundry quotes from Mr. "I vote present on tough issues", at the risk of repeating myself.

B. Hussein Obama said;

- He would meet with Venezuela, Iran and North Korea in his first year as President "without precondition"

- "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won. The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

- "The war should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''

Now if this represents the basis of his qualifications, I think he's in the wrong race. Chief Clown is down the hall on the right.

By the way Soren, tell Jennifer she is a genius. Back in the day when at RNC, she was a magnificent Regional Press Coordinator. As a Party, we are sorely in need of that dedication and skill level once again.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

In particular the first one?

Here is a direct quote...

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.

CLINTON: I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy.

Obama said he was willing to meet. Clinton changed the question. She wasn't asked if she would promise and neither was Obama.

Regarding Obama and Pakistan..

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

How is this ANY different than current policy?

If you want to say it was political grandstanding that's fine. But to argue that is some bizarre policy position is to ignore current policy.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If the situation you describe presents itself today, we certainly would go in and get him. But it would be done quietly, and probably made to look like he was captured in Afghanistan.

See, the real point is that it was foolish to say it out loud. The reason is because Pakistan is unstable as it is, and most Pakistanis are very opposed to any U.S. troops on their soil-this creates an issue which the extremists, who have a significant presence in Pakistan, can use to their advantage, which we want to avoid at all costs. Therefore, any large scale operations in Pakistan are out of the picture, and small scale one(which I certainly hope we are conducting)need to be done in secret.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

What he should have said is that he will do nothing in that situation. I'm sure you guys would have much preferred to hear that.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Let's stick to the questions at hand, shall we? First, the statement he made is on the record and noted even at those lefty corrals of the ignorant. B Hussein Obama even tried to defend it afterwards. I distinctly remember the hearty Clinton chortle.

Next, he is no hawk. The difference between a hawk and BHO is the hawk is famliar with the issues and has courage. BHO long list of present votes in the IL Senate shows he is not a purveyor of that latter quality and probably permanently stuck in HS homeroom.

Lastly, to invade a sovereign nation is at best an act of war. From his long list of present votes (his only record, by the way-well there is that lobbyist thing, but I digress) BHO has neither the knowledge or experience to even hold that discussion. It was therefore another sophmoric opine used to provoke an emotional response and just one more indicator why he should never be POTUS.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

I wasn't aware you were so intimately aware of his votes in the Illinois State legislature. You have a link to the bills you are referring to? Or are you basing this on blogger opinions of bills you've never seen?

I have no idea what your first paragraph is supposed to imply. You're right. He most certainly did say he would be willing to meet all those meanies without precondition.

As far as polemics go, this one doesn't have any legs.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If the situation you describe presents itself today, we certainly would go in and get him. But it would be done quietly, and probably made to look like he was captured in Afghanistan.

See, the real point is that it was foolish to say it out loud. The reason is because Pakistan is unstable as it is, and most Pakistanis are very opposed to any U.S. troops on their soil-this creates an issue which the extremists, who have a significant presence in Pakistan, can use to their advantage, which we want to avoid at all costs. Therefore, any large scale operations in Pakistan are out of the picture, and small scale one(which I certainly hope we are conducting)need to be done in secret.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

Bin Laden does not matter to anybody in the world except for Democrats looking for a dead horse to flog.

Personally I think he means a lot more than that, even if it is mostly symbolic.

Every day he remains free is another day some jihadist will be inspired by him.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

On an operational level, you are correct, Osama more than likely does not matter at all. However, flyerhawk is also correct about his remaining uncaptured being an inspiration. And what about good old fashioned justice? After all, he was in operational control during 9/11. So yes, I have no doubt that if he was located in Pakistan we would go get him.

My point, however, was correct. The situation in Pakistan has always been fragile(though even more so now with the Bhutto assassination) with the extremists enjoying a great deal of popular support. Were we to publicly go into Pakistan, they would use the disapproval of Pakistanis at having American troops on their soil towards their goal of overthrowing Musharraf and replacing him with radical leadership. I don't have to point out the danger of this, as Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

In today's world, where information travels so quickly, even to the third world, this is why it is irresponsible for an American politician to publicly even acknowledge the possibility, or a major American media outlet(NYT) to put it on the front page. I don't recall if the question to Obama was whether he would send troops into Pakistan, or whether he said it in the course of answering a different question. I usually despise politicians when they dodge questions, but if this was put to him directly, he should have dodged.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

Obama was asked a hypothetical. Nothing about it being a public action.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

flyer, the fact that he publicly stated that it was a possibility was a mistake.

Even the possibility that American troops will set foot in Pakistan SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED PUBLICLY by any American of considerably power and position, such as a sitting senator and presidential candidate, because to do so provides great propaganda material for the extremists in Pakistan. Even Joe Biden understands this when he says that "The way to deal with it is not to announce it."

Our goal in Pakistan is simple: Keep Musharraf from being overthrown by radicals. We hoped he would be replaced by the more moderate Bhutto, but that obviously did not work out. The last thing we want is for him to be removed and replaced with a radical government, because extremists whipped the Pakistanis into a frenzy using the specter of American troops on Pakistani soil.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

is so unstable that a hypothetical answer from the junior Senator from Illinois could overcome the government we are royally screwed.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But our troops are leaving Iraq, at least the majority of them. I suspect President Bush will begin the redeployment.

Not sure why you think that Obama has some sort of extreme position on Iraq.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Obama to withdraw brigades forth with. He owes it to the loons and he will deliver at a heavy price to our military and the Iraqi people.

We have about 130,000 there now. By April, last I read, we will have no choice but to scale down due to personnel issues.

The American people want the troops out of Iraq.

It's a done deal. We achieve some arbitrary milestone in which either Bush or his successor will claim that Iraq is stable enough for a draw down.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Intriguing. I think so too, and haven't been shy about saying so. I think it will happen all through this year. But whenever I tell it to a liberal, they usually foam and rant that Bush will NEVER pull anyone from Iraq because he LIKES getting our boys killed. He LIKES war, you see. Hell, even Nancy Pelosi knows that.

You sure you want the idea to get out there that Bush wants our boys home, too? If that notion gains traction, the only difference left between him and, ahem, certain other people, will be that he wants them back *victorious*, rather than in defeat.

Oh, wait -- we already knew that... never mind.

It isn't about what I want. It's about what is going to happen.

There is a certain irony in your post when you castigate Liberals for assigning evil intent on the part of Bush and then castigate Liberals..... for having evil intent in their agenda.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I don't remember castigat[ing] any Liberals for having evil intent in their agenda.

I just found it interesting to hear a liberal concede that maybe Bush wants them home as well. It had never happened before. Oh, I've heard Bush say it. But never a liberal. They always seem to say things like, well, like what The Speaker Of The House said, for example. After all, if he wants them home, she wants them home, and you think he is actually doing it too, ...what's the gripe? Only thing being fought over that I see is whether we call it victory or defeat. If you see another one, why don't you tell *me* what it is?

Troop reductions have already been discussed by Gen. Mixon, Odierno, et al. Last time I checked, their CIC was Bush.

Pony Express didn't arrive lately?

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

reguardless of conditions on the ground. Our CinC is not.

has too much of the sound of "the United States of America" to it. Barack, on the other hand is blessedly "foreign-sounding."

How much you wanna bet that's why he ditched Barry and stuck with Barack?

When I talk to my Obama-loving family, they envariably state that Obama will be able to make the countries of the world like America again.

www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie