The Donovan McNabb Candidate
or a kenyan dan quayle
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (63) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We all know the comment Rush Limbaugh made about Donovan McNabb on ESPN:
"I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well...
Watching the Democrat candidates in action I've become convinced that Barack Obama is the Donovan McNabb candidate.
He's good, he's overrated, and his flaws are simply not covered by the media because they have a vested interest in a "clean and articulate" African American candidate.
Let's take as a point of departure a Washington Post commentary by David Ignatius titled "The Pragmatic Obama: He's Shaping the Debate on Foreign Policy."
First off, and this is not a reflection on Obama but the relentless tendency by the Washington Post to publicly fellate Democrat candidates, does anyone really think that Barack Obama is "shaping the debate" on much of anything?
Thought so.
Read on.
Obama reminds them that he opposed the war in Iraq, even though most of the delegates doubtless supported it. He lauds the soldiers fighting there even as he criticizes the Bush administration civilians who have managed the war. He says that we have "no good options in Iraq" and that the United States must be careful about how it withdraws. He warns that when a president sends soldiers to war next time, the country must be united enough to sustain the fight.
The vets certainly aren't cheering wildly when Obama is done, but to judge from the dozens who rush up to meet him, he seems to have reassured this conservative audience that he's not a left-wing devil.
Or they could be rushing to ask him why he's contributing to the lack of unity that he thinks is hurting the war effort. They could be asking him why he thinks winning isn't a good option. At least, as a veteran, those are a couple of questions I'd like to ask him.
Indeed, you can argue that over the past month, Obama has been shaping the foreign policy debate for the Democrats -- and getting the best of the arguments. By last Sunday's televised debate in Iowa, nobody else seemed eager to challenge Obama's postulate that "strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries." And there was little repetition, either, of the tut-tutting that greeted his statement that he would be prepared to go after al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, with or without President Pervez Musharraf's blessing.
You could also argue that having thoroughly beclowned himself with his comments on Pakistan that no one was really surprised when he suggested undercutting our regional allies by engaging in direct talks with North Korea and Iran or that "strong countries" talk to every pissant dictator with an axe to grind.
And maybe no one seemed eager to challenge Obama because challenging Obama has absolutely zero upside for Democrats and a huge downside if they are perceived as exhibiting anything more aggressive than submissive urination in dealing with Obama. This being much more the case when any challenge would fairly scream to be prefaced with "Are you a moron?"
Obama added some new (and potentially controversial) foreign policy details in an interview Tuesday afternoon, before he hopped a plane for his next stop, in New Hampshire. He said he expects there will still be U.S. troops in Iraq when the next president takes office, and he is discussing with his advisers how this residual force should be used. "For getting out in an orderly way, withdrawing one to two brigades a month is realistic," he said. With 20 combat brigades in Iraq, that would imply a withdrawal schedule of at least a year.
So what should the remaining troops do? Obama says he would support keeping U.S. forces in and around Iraq for protection of U.S. personnel there, for counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda, for protecting Iraq's borders and perhaps for continued training of Iraq's military if that country's political situation permits. He also said U.S. troops should be available to help stop any future "bloodbath" in Iraq, but only as part of a wider international effort.
What does he think US troops are doing now, or is he counting on no one listening to him knowing what US troops are doing? Is it logical to allow a "bloodbath" to materialize when you can prevent it? How does this stack up with his position on Darfur? Did he think the UN actions in Rwanda, which essentially is what he recommends us troops emulate in Iraq, were a really, really good idea? What makes him think there would be a "wider international effort" to stop said "bloodbath" when there isn't a "wider international effort" to prevent it from happening?
If any other candidate, of either party, had said something as profoundly and distrubingly stupid the other candidates and the media would have been on him/her like stink on poo-poo and rightfully so. But in this case we simply hear the crickets.
There is no doubt that Obama is a charismatic guy. He's as accomplished as Hillary Clinton with the added virtue that he didn't have to sleep with someone (as far was we know) to win his senate seat. But he is an veritable Encyclopedia Lightweightia. His level of knowledge could charitably be described as surface skimming. And despite all this he is not going to be challenged by either the press or his opponents.
I only hope that if he wins the nomination that the Republican candidate doesn't fall into the same trap.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Time for Plan B — Comments (22) »
The Donovan McNabb Candidate 63 Comments (0 topical, 63 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This particular phrase caught my attention and shows just how naïve, uninformed and languorously read on history Obama is;
"strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries".
Really; does he care to point out a pertinent historical example? How about a situation such as Iran where they are actively working to kill our troops? Is there an analogous situation where we sat down for tea and anything was resolved? The whole premise is contra intellectual, yet they give him a pass. Oh, how splendidly refreshing and paradigm changing! How about what stupendously ignorant and sophomoric fallacy.
Honestly, this guy could say move the capital from D.C. to Richmond and the MSM would talk about how intellectually provocative that idea was.
I am not sure of this is a McNabb moment, just more slobbering nonsense from the usual trucklers trying their three card monty on the politically lanquid.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
also bomb the bejeezus out of their adversaries.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I was thinking something closer; perhaps this. Howdya like that in the cabinet?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Is there an analogous situation where we sat down for tea and anything was resolved?
The 5440 crisis of the 1840s?
The Korean War?
Detente?
Do you have any examples where refusing to talk to your adversaries has achieved anything?
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
hmmm...we did communicate with him a tad though(in a cerain way)...haven't heard much lately
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
That's one to consider. However it's not like he was removed from power. And it could be argued that the Pan Am flight and the repercussions of that act of evil had a far greater impact on his actions, since hie requests for atonement didn't come about until after that bombing.
He was still training terrorists after we went after him. He just pulled back on the rhetoric.
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
that know about this ....I was always under the impression that our message made great.....impact. We haven't really heard from the lil bugger in a long time....I think he understood our silence..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
The massive economic sanctions that were levied on him by the entire Western world after Pan AM 103.
I'm not suggesting that the bombings had no impact. He definitely became less belligerent in the press.
But let's not forget that 2 years after those bombings he funded the sabotage of Pan Am 103. And he didn't surrender the actual perpetrators for 11 years.
That's not to say I opposed the bombings. Had we actually taken him out that would saved a bunch of people. But to suggest that the bombings achieved anything is to ignore what happened afterwards.
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
Surely we don't believe that the fact that Qaddafi was peeing his pants over our sudden willingness to bomb the daylights out of terrorist enclaves in the Muslim world had SOMETHING to do with his capitulation on terrorism...
5440 was part of looooong deliberation with Britain and Canada on the quite expansive shared border, beginning with Webster-Ashburton in Maine(AFTER the Aroostok "War") including 5440 or fight, as the slogan was completed, and finaly with the Alaskan panhandle ion the late 19th cen. That was hardly with a bitter enemy however.
Would you call the Korean War resolved? Honestly........
Finaly, Detente usually only resulted in us tipping our hand to the Soviets. It could be said the Regan walking OUT of the Rejkyavik Conference played a part too.
"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate
If you don't think Americans of the early to mid 19th century thought of England as an enemy, well we see things differently. I never said that talking resolves the matter quickly.
Would you call the Korean War resolved? Honestly........
What was the objective of the Korean War? What was the objective of the cease fire? Are you saying that neither of these objectives were achieved?
Finaly, Detente usually only resulted in us tipping our hand to the Soviets. It could be said the Regan walking OUT of the Rejkyavik Conference played a part too.
Reagan walking out Rejkyavik would never have happened had they not been talking already.
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
When we talked over 5440 and Detente, we were talking with the world's superpowers at the time - England and the USSR. And in both instances, we were talking with a government who did not want to fight us (at least openly, in the case of the Soviet Union) so there was something to be gained from those talks.
In the case of the Korean War, those were talks aimed at ending an existing shooting war acknowledged on all sides. Again, both sides had something to gain from the negotiations.
What are we going to talk about with Iran? They do not acknowledge they are working on nuclear weapons. They do not acknowledge they are supporting the insurregency in Iraq. In short, we have almost nothing to gain, except to be made a complete fool of. Kinda like Chamberlain talking to Hitler.
What are we going to discuss with any other Islmaic terrorist regime committed to our destruction? Are we going to ask them nicely to stop? And offer them what? And then expect them to comply - much like Clinton's nuclear deal with North Korea?
Barack's problem stems from his naivete in foreign affairs and the fact that he believes he's smarter than everyone else. If only he could talk to them, he could convince them that all is well and they will behave themselves. Since that has never really worked in all of human history, I'm skeptical.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
what we would talk with Iran about. I don't know what we could offer to Iran that they would find worthwhile and that we would be willing to concede.
But I also think it is absurd how you guys are framing his comments.
This isn't about asking them nicely or trying to reason with them. It's about diplomacy. Now you may choose to believe that diplomacy never works but the rest of the world does not.
He said we should talk to them. That's all he said.
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
when you have two parties who share a common frame of reference and are looking to settle differences. Not so much when one of the parties is absolutely commited to the destruction of the other.
And these aren't my beliefs or prejudices. This is what the radical Islamists say to anyone who will bother to listen.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
Obama said "Talk with them" no to them. Big difference, though subtle.
Talk TO them, I am all for. But With? um, no.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Honestly, if you’ll have to connect the dots for me between those events and the situations Obama is talking about; something at least in the same region or scale. I mean a territorial dispute, unsettled shooting conflict (still without peace treaty) and a global superpower confrontation?
Now I hate to disenthrall you from wild, unfettered fantasies of Obamadom, but his articulations have been disassembled thoroughly here. Any attempt to try and rescue his ridiculous proclamations -I am afraid is- hopeless. Obama's own party laughs at his foreign policy gaffes, I find that rather pathetic irrespective of the WaPo's attempt to put a new face on it.
One of the points you might have missed is the automatonical applause associated with his ability for visional vicissitude. The problem is they all slept through Middle Eastern history and missed the point it is accomplished better first with the barrel of a gun; a tactic not disproved or likely to be retired any time soon.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
It took you 3 paragraphs of empty invective to come to this conclusion...
The problem is they all slept through Middle Eastern history and missed the point it is accomplished better first with the barrel of a gun; a tactic not disproved or likely to be retired any time soon.
Yeah that has worked wonders for us.
I'm not surprised that you discard all of my examples. Because of course if I can't find an example of the most powerful nation in the world settling a hostile dispute with a much smaller nation that clearly means that diplomacy never works.
His own party does not laugh at his claims. Hillary Clinton, master of riding the fence and never deviating from the mean, laughs at his comments because they are candid and the last thing she wants is honesty and candor.
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
We are talking specifics, not generalizations. Obama is talking about a certain group of countries. The problem is he (or anyone else) has not provided an analogous example where the suggested "policy" would work. (BTW, we have been talking to Iran via the UN; that's working well, dontchathink?)
Nobody said diplomacy never works; that's your strawman, not mine.
This entire side is laughing at their lack of candor and honesty (and Hillary's pantsuits-o.k that was gratuitous).
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Because you discard every other comparison as invalid.
Historically really powerful countries simply invaded weak countries. You think invading Iran is an option?
30 years of not talking to Iran hasn't achieved much of anything. But it worked really well in Cuba and North Korea.
The ironic part of this is that you keep asking for examples of this working but you have yet to show relevant example of the no talk policy working somewhere.
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 a whole lot of talking and diplomacy, you?..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
We refused to recognize them for nearly 10 years. Zero discussions with them. Worked out really well for us.
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
dipstick Clinton was doing, huh?...Guess that's why GWB shortly in office had to take care of business.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Shortly being defined as 10 months after taking office and a massive terrorist attack.
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
that leaves quite a few years Billy must of have been asleep in the WH...err...well...you know...he was busy.
Like I said before, relax....no one expected the Dems to have much of a spine.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I thought we were talking about policy choices? When did we move on to Clinton-bashing? Oh I know. Right when you painted yourself into a corner. You went with the crowd pleaser.
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 discard every example not relevant. Appropriately and exempli gratia, the relevant one's seem to be very elusive.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
a complete lack of examples on your part.
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
Last I heard they were still officially hostile to the USA and engaged in an ongoing war as enemies of the USA (in NKs case). Where has it gotten us with them?
Where did talking with Saddam get us? Syria? Palestine?
No one is saying that talking/diplomacy has no place (see: Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E.).
We are, however, saying that there are some governments with whom "having a dialogue" is utterly worthless at best.
And yes, invading Iran IS an option, and a viable one at that, assuming it was carried out correctly (however, I will admit that with the current crop of panty-weights on The Hill and in the Pentagon, it probably wouldn't be).
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
We haven't talked to Cuba in over 40 years. Zero diplomatic relations. How are they an example of diplomacy failing?
I am mot suggesting that diplomacy is a panacea for all woes. But to simply shelve that option completely when it is quite apparent that NOT talking to someone is achieving nothing, seems foolishly stubborn.
If you wish to believe that invading Iran is an option, be my guest. I have no idea where you think we will get the troops to invade a country 7 times larger than Iraq with a far more rugged terrain with 4 times as many people that would be unified in their opposition to a US invasion. But to each their own.
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
Invading Iran would have to be carried out in a manner to our invasion of Europe in the 40s.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Against the most incredible array of coastal defenses ever seen ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
The Phillippines (the guerrila war)
Spain
Mexico any of the Several times we went to war with them.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
My great-great-great-great grandfathers all were able to complete Army Boot Camp (those who all were in the USA and weren't Navy, that is).
(Those Marines out there who know the origins of their offshoot of that branch of the military will understand that dig)
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
When a man in uniform starts talking about generation after generation of ancestors having taken on the same, my back stiffens up and I'm inclined to take it entirely seriously.
I can't see if you're grinning :-)
You wouldn't have had to worry about if I knew you were joking...
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
How are any of those examples of isolation and refusing to have diplomatic discussions with another country?
The Mexican War was a pure land grab. Spanish-American War wasn't a whole lot better. You will need to expand a bit on what you are referring to when you mention the Phillipines.
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
There were only 3 of them (well, 2 plus the Texas rebellion). And yes, 1 was a pure land grab, however the other, later one (which involved a great many later generals of the world wars in their younger years) was a response to the Mexican government being a problem. You will note that we gave them back everything we took on our way to Mexico City.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Pershing's action in North Mexico as a war? Quite a stretch.
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
For about 10-12 years after we took the Phillippines from Spain, we were involved in a very bloody guerrilla war with local "partisans" (I use the quote-marks because they were more nearly modern Islamic terrorists in their methods). We refused to speak with them and just went about the proccess of killing them.
And what I was trying to say with my examples was not that they were successes in purely refusing to deal with the opposing forces, but that refusing to speak with them is merely the first step on the road to moving in and breaking their backs.
Teddy Roosevelt made a grave error when he said what is likely his most quoted statement, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," by leaving out the fact that you might as well not Have a stick at all if you are unwilling to use it.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
So we're building up to invading Iran. Awesome! Can't wait to see it happen. Except it WON'T happen.
I have no problem with the big stick. Sometimes you must swing for the fences. But you are ignoring the reality of the world RIGHT NOW! We cannot invade Iran. Had we not invaded Iraq it might have been a possibility but it is simply not possible right now.
We are the most powerful force that has ever existed on the planet. We are not inexhaustible. We are not indefatigable. We are not able to fight the world.
Winners fight the fights we can win not the fights we will lose.
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
About us not invading Iran anytime soon.
But it's not that we Can't. There is no nation on Earth powerful enough to prevent us from invading and conquering, Should we wish to.
That's the problem. We are in a better strategic position to invade Iran than we were before. And I maintain that that was a Huge reason we went into Iraq first. To position ourselves to both their East and West.
Unfortunately, our leadership appears to lack the cahones to carry through against their domestic opposition to make the invasion happen.
But there is no reason out there that would cause us to be unAble to carry through were we only not unWilling.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Oh, the humanity. It is but for masochism I endure, because the educational purpose is evidently fruitless.
Let's try again;
- Obama is talking specifics. Who is he saying we should talk to? What example does he offer that talking to these parties will make a difference? How does that prove his point? How does that earn him the accolades expressed in streiff's post?
He followed up that statement with ""We've tried the other way. It didn't work." Really? What didn't work?
Remember the force, Luke.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Obama is talking specifics, Flyerhawk as well, you are not. I know it is difficult to interrupt your word-of-the-day exposition and sully yourself with a mention of them, but your meticulous avoidance of any specifics of your own smacks of double standard. Perhaps if you offered some examples that meet your exceedingly exacting standard of analogy the discussion might move forward. Let not your insistence on florid proclamation rob us of the chance to disassemble your dissimulations.
If your argument is with the praise Obama gets, fine. If it's with his stated policy, you have provided absolutely no argument to support your criticism short of quibbling with his words. Feel free to begin doing so.
-jb
talking specifics if you think gibberish qualifies as specificity.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Newly uncovered "rules of engagement" show the U.S. military gave elite units broad authority more than three years ago to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance.
The documents obtained by The Associated Press offer a detailed glimpse at what Army Rangers and other terrorist-hunting units were authorized to do earlier in the war on terror. And interviews with military officials suggest some of those same guidelines have remained in place, such as the right to "hot pursuit" across the border.
....
Even a surveillance report of enemy fighters setting up a rocket and pointing it west into Afghanistan is enough to trigger a unilateral military response, said Lute, then the chief operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now President Bush's deputy national security adviser - the "war czar" on Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/23/ap4050090.html
I wonder which be-clowned moron authorized this policy?
we don't know the story is true.
Second, the story does not say the policy authorized pursuit by conventional units.
Third, the policy does not say that the pursuit was authorized without a Pakistani approval at some level.
Fourth, the policy limits the distance of the incursion to 10 km, essentially one ridge line.
When you learn how to read, drop me a line.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
doing what Obama is advocating? Then you should be applauding Bush, no? Obama deserves double beclowning for advocating an action taken by a man he claims is a failure. Then making a speech about it while running for POTUS and not knowing that fact. Yep my future CinC. Goody.
[in the interest of honest discussion all future comments by flyerhawk will be fisked in their original form]
This is a perfect example of rationalizing a comment to the most favorable view possible for your biases.
How would Obama "know" this fact?
I'm fairly certain that Obama has never claimed that everything that Bush has done is a failure [editors note: the comment above at no point says "everything"].
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
why doesn't Obama? If your a candidate you should know something about the subject OR be smart enough not to talk about it. The "open your mouth and remove all doubt" rule.
Look flyerhawk, back in 2001 Bush said we would go any where in the world to kill AQ. If you don't think we have forces there doing that (as Obama seems to think) then you don't Know GWB.
So then Obama's comment was simply a reiteration of current policy. Why did you guys on the Right call his comment naive and irresponsible if it is just SOP?
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
It is apparent that Bush has already had a discussion of some manner concerning exactly what Obama was advocating.
However, Bush, equally apparently, did it quietly and at least Semi-privately. This would allow the ability to say that they never had this discussion in case realities inside Pakistan require them to deny it.
By saying what he did, Obama removes his own ability to claim plausible deniability on this topic in case he is ever elected. His threat is public and can be (and, as has been noted in other diaries here on RS) Is being used against Musharraf.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
It's election rhetoric.
Was Bush required to NOT nation build because he adamantly said he would NOT do such a thing during the 2000 election?
IMO, you guys just don't like to hear a Democrat talking tough. And instead of simply acknowledging, as you should, that ANY President would act that way in that situation, you create a red herring argument about upsetting the Pakistanis.
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 has been discussed Several times here ojn RS alone, it was immensely Stupid.
It is being used against Musharraf by the local (and foreign provided) forces that are not supportive of his government and, as I said, it was a case of Wrong place, wrong time.
You will note, if you care to actually read my post, that I suggested Bush had already had Exactly that kind of discussion with Musharraf but had obviously kept it qquiet in order to notfurther weaken an already shaky allied government.
Obama wasn't that smart.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
or anyone else call for the killing of AQ. He was insinuating the GWB is not because we are in Iraq. Laughable. He got roughed up over it because it made him look like a rookie. Which he is.
in the hearts of enemies anywhere, incl Pakistan. Now, if he would just strike some fear into AQ in Iraq.
Of course the President can't threaten an ally in public. But if Obama were to get elected (see fraud!) he can always clarify himself.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
that its just rhetoric. (fraud) If Obama is elected there will be talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.
Killing AQ not so much. More like not at all.
...even Joe Biden has a condescending, whitey man-crush on Obama. And gets away with it.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Ouch!
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes