Wednesday, August 01, 2007
|
|
Obama, the Supah-Hawk
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
11:55 AM
|
You think I'm naive, Clinton? I'll show you naive!
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid. "Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
This is my favorite sentence of the coverage, from Marc Ambinder:
That stance, one part of the multifacted counterrorrism strategy Obama unveils this morning, is tougher than the more considered approach of the Bush Administration, which has generally avoided antagonizing its ally in public. The boards at Democratic Underground are a big ol' Hillary vs. Obama slapfight, filled with delightful blue-on-blue chickenhawk argumentation:
To all you Obama supporters
So who is going to fight this war in Pakistan?
I guess you're volunteering to go sign up? Because you know our army is stretched thin.
Go to the recruiting office and sign up for President Obama's endless war in Pakistan!
If you don't you're chickenshit. Lots of talk but no supporting your President Obama. Via Michelle, Sister Toldjah:
Would this be before or after those unconditional meetings he would have with the world’s most despotic ‘leaders’? Allah sends out the call:
I think it’s brilliant. Once we pull out of Iraq we’re going to have a huge manpower surplus from all the leftist cretins who’ve spent the last four years chanting “chickenhawk” running off to enlist so they can live out their dream of fighting the “real war on terror.” Put ‘em to use. There’ll be casualties and, yeah, an incursion into another Muslim country will hurt America’s “global image” and, sure, there’s a significant risk that it would push Pakistan’s moderate population into the radical camp — a point the left grasps in the context of attacking Iran, ironically, but not here — but they’ve been positively itching for this fight. It seems cruel to deny them. Maybe Max will be there.
The Hillary response oughtta be good.
|
|
|
Why aren't you in Pakistan!?! |
|
|
this entertaining...this is great. I love watching Hillary having to actually take positions and hits from her left and watching Obama make himself, his supporters and the nutroots look like the naive idiots they are. |
|
Negotiate where possible (we did) toughen tactics with those who harbor our enemies (like Saddam was).
And you naive hero B. Hussein Osama (oops, sorry, slipped into Ted Kennedy speak)..ahem, Obama would alienate our Arab allies.
Great job! Pissing off a Muslim country full of jihadists, has nukes and who's friendly leader would be overthrown the day after the first American boot hits the ground. |
|
Hertz rent-a-car made out like gangbusters from war profiteering.
|
|
According to the lefties' own arguments, since Barack Obama never served in the military, he will therefore NEVER possess the moral authority necessary to authorize military action against Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, or even the rogue Sandwich Islands !
As a result, no lefty voter with integrity could dream of voting for a Democrat who doesn't have prior military service.
|
|
|
I love watching libs willingly display their naiviete' and ignorance of the real world. |
|
Thanks for once again demonstrating for the whole world to see how little you really know.
Your one talent (if you can call it that) is cutting and pasting lefty talking points.
In your incredible portfolio of stupid comments, this is the coup de grace. You have no relevance outside of your own dank little closet.
|
|
On foreign policy, Obama is like a drunk driver, he weaves from barrow pit to barrow pit.
I can just see the flip flop ads now. He has had so many inconsistent and changing positions on the Middle East and how to hand terrorism that it is not funny. It gets even worse if you try to take all of his statements at various times and turn that mess into a coherent well thought out foreign policy.
This guy is dangerous. He is also losing ground to Hillary in the latest two polls. |
|
If President Obama were to attack Pakistan, wouldn't that merely create MORE Jihadists ?
Wouldn't that make us LESS safe ?
That would only INFLAME the Muslim world !
Ha, ha, ha. |
|
He would need a United Nations Security Council resolution to justify this pre-emptive attack. Also, since Pakistan is neither working with al Qaeda nor have they attacked us, would this not be considered, in the liberal world, an "illegal war"?
While he would be a hypcrite and any liberal who is against the Iraq war who were to support him in this mission also would be a hypocrite, I would back him. My thought is, enough is enough. Let's get these b@stards and anyone who stands in the way.
However, a President Obama also would need to keep the nuclear option open. In war, that option is always necessary to have. Would a President Obama use nuclear weapons if ultimately necessary to defeat the enemies of freedom? |
|
that Obama said this as he demonstrated beyond any doubt his lack of qualification to be Commander-in-Chief.
Remember troop morale under Jimmer Carter? That squared.....
Sitting ducks....ripe for the picking( mixed metaphor) |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of us chickenhawks are opposing military strikes on al Qaeda in Pakistan. In fact, I said that I am all for it and would back Obama if he were to do it as president. I wish Bush would do it today.
Most people are just pointing out the hypocrisy of anti-Iraq war arguments such as pre-emption or striking a UN nation without UN authority.
Also, Obama has said he's always been against the war. I suggest you check out his statements before he entered the Senate. He never mentioned anything about a "civil war". |
|
...the notion of p***ing off an ally. We don't have a lot of Muslim governments on our side these days.
If Osama wants to provide an more bluster, he may want to pick an enemy to threaten, not a friend. |
|
*Obama doesn't oppose the war in Iraq because they didn't attack us,*
Iraq never attacked us ? You are, of course, joking. |
|
*I'd really like to know why a bunch of people who generally seem to support war in Iraq and some who are angling for war in Iran would oppose military strikes on al Qaida in Pakistan?*
Lol, err Pakistan is cooperating as much as any muslim nation. Thats why.
Examples of Nations not cooperating:
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. Syria
Why not go after those countries openly hostile to the US? I'm not saying we can rely on the Saudis or the Pakistanis or necessarily fully trust them. However, we do have a working relationship with both and I think the hypocrisy comes from the left's constant requests for dialogue with "the enemy".
Would I like to go into Pakistan and get rid of what's left of Al Queda- hell yes- but I'm not willnig to declare war on a country that provides as much assistance as any other country in the GWOT. |
|
|
You never called anyone a chickenhawk. That's what Kimberlyc, Soothsayer(aka jessicalange) and others refer to us as. So, I happily oblige them and hold that name dear to my heart. |
|
|
figure it out. Iraq is 'Bush's war'. A war with Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, wouldn't be. that's pretty straight forward. But remember the last time there was a war and a Democratic President with no backbone. Obama is a Statist and is saying, like the Hildebeast, anything and everything he can to garner support and votes. Ah the campaign season. I thought andering and prostitution was illegal... |
|
|
instead of "super-hawk"? Is there a joke to it? |
|
"Could anyone here tell me what the problem is with Obama's speech?"
Dude: he opened his mouth. Hey just trying to lighten up. |
|
"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 would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power"
- Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn
"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"
-New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
|
|
|
|