Barack Obama: Macho man
Scroll down for updates…Via Obama’s website, here are the full prepared remarks of his Macho Speech…you’ll be able to watch the speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here.
Looks like the laughingstock Democrat presidential candidates have been eating their Wheaties. Yesterday, it was John Edwards flexing his imaginary muscles at Saudi Arabia. Today, it’s Barack Obama shaking his fist at Pakistan. ABC News reports on the first-term senator’s latest, greatest “bold” idea–invading Pakistan unilaterally. Diplomacy, international law, and the U.N. be damned! Behold, Obama the Cowboy:
In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, “but let me make this clear. 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 Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Ooooooh. Scaaaary. Is there anything more pathetic than a defeatist retreatist trying to sound tough on terror?
Snicker. Snort. Guffaw. Cue up Obama’s new theme song:
***
The Obama campaign also supplied the remarks in advance to the Associated Press.
***
More reaction:
Clayton Cramer: “The major selling point that Obama has to the billionaires is that he opposed the Iraq War. I think he just threw away that advantage.”
Sister Toldjah: “Would this be before or after those unconditional meetings he would have with the world’s most despotic ‘leaders’?”
Jason Smith: “I’m Not Naive on Foreign Policy… Watch Me Invade a Nuclear-Armed, Muslim Country!”
Allahpundit looks at Obama’s prepared remarks and concludes:
Sounds like he’s looking to invade a lot more than just Pakistan. Is the left prepared for U.S. special ops incursions into various sovereign countries to attack AQ leadership? They seemed a little jumpy about the operations in Somalia in December, notwithstanding the fact that four of the 1998 embassy bombers were in the crosshairs. And secondly, does everyone realize that Bush has already promised to send troops into Pakistan if they’ve got a bead on Bin Laden? Obama’s not breaking any new ground here unless he means to suggest something grander than a surgical strike of a few hundred troops. Which, given his specific mention of the 2005 shot at Zawahiri that Rumsfeld passed on, he probably doesn’t.
Ed Morrissey: “One would hope that this would mark the end of Barack Obama’s credibility as a presidential candidate.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- NeoCon News » New Sheriff in Town
- southchild » Blog Archive » The Obama / Jimmy Carter Ticket
- JammieWearingFool
- Sister Toldjah » Obama: I’m tough when I wanna be
- Captain's Quarters
- Macho, Macho Man « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » Barack Obomber
- Babalu Blog
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Obama Demonstrates That Shortsightedness is Part of His Resume
- Obama dangles the idea of sending Troops to Pakistan | BitsBlog
- PAXALLES
- Obamability :: Barack Obama: Macho man
- Planned Parenthood and…. , Spider-Man? « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Bill's Bites
- DeMediacratic Nation
- Wake up America
- Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan « DeMediacratic Nation at WordPress
- Iowa Voice » » Obama Would Invade Pakistan if Elected
- Thinkin’bout Stuff » Blog Archive » Obama would invade Pakistan?
- Hyscience
- Flying Imam Perps Not Suing Witnesses Thanks to ‘John Doe’ Protection « TMQ2
- Wonkette
- The Low Wattage Of The Liberal Mindset: B. Hussein Obama sez: Pull Out Of Iraq, Attack Pakistan...
- Balloon Juice
- barack obama, cowboy « empty rhetoric
- The Amboy Times
- beauchamp’s revenge « empty rhetoric
- Well, That’s Comforting « Nate Nelson
- Considering Politics at this Time « Cavman Considers
- Michelle Malkin » Way to go, Barack!
- Barack Obama, daft diplomat extraordinaire « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- 2008 Presidential Election » Barack Obama: Macho man
- Michelle Malkin » Saturday night jive: The New Hampshire debates; Round Two - Dem candidates
Did George Soros finally get to this guy too?
Wow! Thats a great Obama picture on the home page!
Look! Up in the sky! Its a bird….. Its a plane…. Its Super Liberal!
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and the United Nations’ way.
His only weakness: A debate moderated by Fox News
Liberals will NEVER invade a terrorist supporting country at any cost, as we can see with their constant moaning about Iraq. Yet they always claim they will or would have, such as North Korea, Iran, and now Pakistan, etc., i.e. their claim that we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq, we should have attacked North Korea and they would have if in power, etc.
It is just a way to trick a few gullible people into thinking they are conservative instead of socialist liberals in an election. As soon as we show any sign of actually going after terrorists in Pakistan or invading Iran or doing something militarily about North Korea, Obama will quickly change his pretend hawkish stance.
Here is another good theme song for “Super Obama”:
Men In Tights
“Because you have to be a man to wear tights”
“Always on guard defending people’s rights”
“We rob from the rich, and give to the poor”
“We may look like sissy’s…”
“La, la, la, la, la, la, la….”
If he were willing to back this up with action, I might give him credit for saying the first thing I’ve liked from the stable of Democrats in the presidential race. Unfortunately, as it was so aptly stated by our lovely host, this guy has already demonstrated the fact that he is a “defeatist retreatist.”
However, this is a stance that I wish the President would take. I wish that someone who is willing to legitimately take this position and back it up with action would be elected next fall. If President Musharraf is not willing to kill terrorists who are plotting to kill us, we need to go kill them and damn the consequences of crossing into Pakistan.
“The enemy of my friend is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” -Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”
What’s it gonna be, President Musharraf?
Un. Be. Lievable.
If anything proves this guy is not ready to be president - ever - it’s the idea that we’d invade Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani government.
There would be a million Pakis in the streets calling for Musharraf’s head because they’d never believe he didn’t authorize it. And the chances that a much more radical faction would seize power who would ally themselves with the Taliban and al-Qaeda would go up considerably.
This, of course, would mean that al-Qaeda would fulfill their dream of having their hands on a nuclear weapon. Not one but 60.
If there has ever been a more dangerous proposal made by a man seeking to be president, I can’t think of one.
It may not be a bad idea. Osama Bint Laden’s strategy appears to be that Al Qaeda is fighting the US in Iraq so that he does not have to fight them in Pakistan.
Sound familiar, doesn’t it?
It sounds like at least one politician recognizes the several fronts on the GWOT, especially the one where the perpertrators of 9/11 can be found.
IMHO, there have always been questions inre to going into Iraq based on what happened on 9/11. There was little or no question about going into Afghanistan after 9/11.
How can anyone that is so aligned with defeat and retreat dare stand in front of Superman? Superman is the ultimate symbol for doing what’s right even when it’s the hardest thing to do and for standing up for those that can’t defend themselves. Who does he think he’s fooling?
Rick,
Precisely. So, what do you think the odds are that anyone in the MSM will remind Clark Kent that Pakistan is a nuclear power, that Musharraf is dealing with radical Islamist Assassination plots almost by the day, and that the mountains in question aren’t exactly the Catskills.
What else does Obama have in mind, bombing Beijing for poisoning cats?
I don’t care what Sun Tzu said. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. Nothing more, nothing less.
But Obama is showing himself to be more and more ignorant by the day. What happened to talking to Musharraf? Or do we only talk to the leaders of rogue nations, Senator Obama?
I want to be face to face with Senator Obama, and I want to have 20 minutes to talk to him about this crap. Who can make that happen?
I’d try and arange it myself, but I’m an Illinois resident from the middle of the state. They haven’t given a crap about us in at least a decade.
Now, if I was from Chicago, maybe…
Don’t worry about Pakistan’s nukes either, that’ll sort itself out after Gen Musharraf gets overthrown.
Got any more bright ideas?
Zyzzyg,
Don’t be too sure, plenty of people popped up to complain about going into Afghanistan. There’s nothing wrong with holding a hard line with Pakistan, but declaring that you’re going to hop across the border every now and again whether the government of that country likes it or not? Doesn’t seem very diplomatic to me…
(Also, just in passing, Saddam was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner or later)
Naw - just another attempt to quickly jump to the middle whilst still pandering to the surrender-now gang. Coming from Obama, it’s nothing but laughable.
Say anything to get attension.
You must have forgotten what Pres Bush said, that he would ‘go after terrorists and those who support them … ‘Pres Bush added, ‘you are either with us, or against us.’
Pres Bush has been absolutely inconsistent since he laid down this marker. He allowed the terrorist Arafat to peacefully die in his sleep. Pres Bush coddles the Saudis knowing that their people are entering Iraq to become suicide bombers.
What is the deal with that? There are terrorist, and there are terrorists that we don’t bother? Listen, a terrorsit is a terrorist, and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
No doubt there are plans that have to made, agreements that have to be ironed out, and contingencies that have to be considered before going into Pakistan. Hopefully, more time and effort will be spent doing this than was spent deciding to go into Iraq.
Hussein Obama invading a Muslim nation?
Wouldn’t he be worried about alienating Ted Kennedy, Senator Smirk, and Pelosi?
He’d have to stop ripping off Marvin Gaye and cease playing that famous tune “What’s Goin’ On?” at his public appearances. (”war is not the answer…”)
But I guess it isn’t a big deal since the Village People have wide appeal too in those circles.
He does have a new election slogan, courtesy of Nacho Libre: “Sometimes, you must wear stretchy pants!”
“al-Barry” is just not ready for prime time.
PS: What “actionable intelligence” was he referring to? What is the difference between *that* “actionable intelligence” and the a/i about WMD’s in Iraq.
Cherries anyone?
Are you not paying attention? Politicians bank on the idea Americans are more concerned about reality shows than reality. Liberals take advantage of the idea that you can tell the public something on TV and the bigger the lie the more believable. The general public believes we are losing the war but do not know how much has actually been done to improve Iraq. Most people still believe that the President lied to get us into the war. Most people believe Libby outted a spy and not the idea it was a witch hunt. People are being fed a steady diet of Hilto_ and Loha_ as news. The public is dumbed down and will not take the time to do the research to find out what the real deal is so they depend on the MSM to tell them the truth and you know where that has led!
Sorry, not an attack on you just and observstion about “a few”.
Pakistan has helped immensely thus far in the GWOT. It’s folly to ignore their contributions because they could do more. It’s not exactly a stable government to begin with. Musharraf has stuck his neck out to be ‘with us’ more or less.
Methinks the war and national security is going to be a huge liability for the Dhimmicrats in 08.
They’ll end up having to face their criticisms and harangues about Bush and the WOT as they try to articulate *what they are gonna do about it* once they get the car keys.
“Well, i’d invade Pakistan without permission.”
Uhhhhhhhhhhh-huh. Next.
The difference is that the MSM might still cover for him if he’s wrong.
Or they might still just blame Bush.
Or Murtha and losing his future pork! Can I say pork or will that offend a muslim? Just asking.
LMAO!!
Mmmmm…BLT sandwich…
Obama HUSSEIN is macho??? I trow not!
The public is dumbed down in a way that helps Dhimmicrats- and hurts them.
Despite the lies being told by Dhimmicrats leading up to the election, and all of the drama (Libby and Plamegate), there is at least one big thing on some voters minds about “Bill” going back into the White House: his use of the bathroom sinks for certain “presidential activities”.
I call it the *tabloid factor*. Tough to get that image out of the public’s mind.
And it will get revisited *this time*.
I can hear it now, “Mrs. Clinton, how will you control your husband if you are elected Commander in Chief?”
OOKKKKKKAAAAYYYYYY…..
Let me see if I have this correct.
1) If he becomes President, is he saying that he’ll invade a soveriegn nation that DID NOT attack us??? YES
2) If he attacks Pakistan, wouldn’t that “just breed more terrorists?” YES again
2A) Since it will be a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, what will his exit strategy be since we’ll be fighting them for years, now WITHOUT Musharaf’s support, albeit with his limited support. DDDUUUUHHHHH, I don’t know
3) After President Musharaf is overthrown, what kind of IN-stability do you think you will cause in the region? HHHMMMMM….Nuclear armed Extremists??? That’s a good one, I’ll have to get back to you
I actually did (and do) like Hillary’s answer to the debate about the naive answer that Obama provided. She at least does have more foreign experience knowledge from that point of view. I have a feeling that this “could” potentially be one of those Death Blows come the general election time when the Republicans can bring this up.
People: Knock off the stupid “Hussein” comments, okay? It’s as thoughtless and tiresome to me as the liberal racists who make fun of my maiden name because of its ethnic sound.
Criticize the substance of Obama’s policy proposals. Leave his inherited name out of it.
Senator Obama, let me tell you about the Bomb. Pakistan has it. You don’t want to piss off a country that has the Bomb and who would be willing to use it (hint, this is why Iran is looking to get one). So, when you try to burnish your tough-guy attitude by threatening to invade Pakistan or threatening to withdraw funds from a critical ally who is keeping Islamists in check, you might want to think twice. Remember, if you have to make enemies, you want to make them before they get the Bomb, not after.
Oh, and he also wants to remove troops from Iraq, who are battling al-Qaeda terrorists and their sympathizers, in order to move them into Afghanistan (and potentially Pakistan) in order to battle, you guessed it, al-Qaeda terrorists and their sympathizers.
Of course, if President Obama invaded Pakistan, there wouldn’t be unintended consequences like inflaming more Islamists, would there? I mean, aren’t they the guys that unhinged lefties want to pander to? Well, of course that won’t happen, since he’s Obamessiah! I’m sure the Islamists would understand.
ROFL
She controled him before or rolled with it? If there is a pun in the somewhere it was not intentional.
From the looks of the Demos running for President, I see more caricatures/cartoon characters than individuals who are REAL.
NeoConNews#20-
I want to see the MSM cover for al-Barry
when a suitcase nuke goes off in D.C. as a result of his pull out from Iraq and his subsequent invasion of Pakistan after closing all the US bases in the region (while trying to live up to the emerging campaign mantra of “no permanent bases”).
DOH! Dead guys!
Politics…the Latin is many ‘blood sucking insects.’
In a “debate”, it’s supposed to be about the substance, not the gutter politics of name calling.
TRUST ME, there’s plenty of issues to take the Democrats to task for without going down this road.
I had to choose my words carefully.
It’s opportunistic. Spend the next 14 months watching the Democratic candidates flip-flop like fish out of water.
They’re so smug it’s unbelievable that their heads don’t simply float off their shoulders.
And they want to lead us.
Wow.
That implies that the general public would bother to understand the points you’ve just made. Good luck finding a Republican who can put it succinctly and get his message out.
About Obama’s “new” theme song….
“It’s got a great beat and it’s easy to dance to.”
That’s about all I can say abou it.
Other than it fits with that picture of him, bare (and I mean hairless) chested frolicking in the waves of Hawaii.
Although with him snarking about invading Pakistan (once he surrenders in Iraq), perhaps “Macho Man” might not appropriately convey the best message.
I think this might be more appropriate, more descriptive, theme song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ88oTITMoM
MM good on you. This is one of the reasons I like your BLOG so much. Hopefully, in an update you will provide a link to the text of Sen Obama’s speach. This way we could all address the substance of what he said in toto. We will know the qualifications and caveats he may, or may not, have presented.
Given his comments at the YouTube debate - the perfect question would have been “Ok - What’s your exit strategy after you invade?”
( Sound of crickets to follow )
It’s going to be difficult for Clinton to win the nomination without destroying Obama - which would place him out of bounds for VP. This is going to be far more interesting than the GOP race.
Pakistan with it’s arsenal of nukes may have formed alliances that would come to their defense should we get so foolish. They are bound to have friends/allies somewhere besides the U.S.? However, I must have missed Economics 101. After we forgave millions owed by Pakistan am I the only one with the hunch they’ve continued to increase/improve their nuke arsenal?
Agreed. That being said, sometimes you get a story like this and it makes you say stupid things because of the content. Stupid is as stupid does. Not an excuse, just an observation.
In your defense (like you need it), we do have to be more vigilant these days because there are people who are trying to nail you and your site as “hate” and will pull posts to “prove” it. My heart would sink if one of my posts were ever used in such manner.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:24 am, Michelle Malkin
Michelle, you seem a little extra testy this morning - what’s wrong? I agree with you here because name calling doesn’t advance any substance in an argument. But pointing out his name isn’t ‘offensive’, it just is a nothing in terms of debate.
I’ve been to Metropolis, Ill to that statue of Superman before. I actually sold books door to door there with the Southwestern Company when I was in college (never again). Coincidentally, that’s where I was when the OJ chase happened. It’s a funny town right across the river from Paducah, Ky. Everyone should visit someday.
Obama’s foreign policy i.q. is deficient as evidenced by his recent declaration that he would send US troops into Pakistan without the permission of that sovereign nation to do so.
Beep, beep! Get out of the way; the back-peddling is about to start.
Obama would be tougher if he was not a closet smoker and smoked in public.
Having just read Senator OBama’s speech, there was something that I read “between the lines” that WILL NOT happen.
He kept speaking about civilian agency, civilian counterparts, etc.
Excuse me…Exactly WHY will any civilians get involved now with the U.S. because you left them all to suffer in Iraq after you pulled out the troops????
There needs to be an amount of time where common ground and alliances can be forged between the civilian population and the military. It has taken several years in order to get to the point where we are now in Iraq, with more civilians pointing out terrorists, IED’s, strongholds, etc.
Why would you want to start from square one again????
I thought everyone already agreed Obama was smoking? … Wait, does someone actually like him for his “ideas”? Oh God, I feel the illusion of substantive debate and intellectualism crashing down around me!
I used to live in southern Illinois, about 45 minutes from Metropolis.
There is a bridge in Chester Illinois which crosses the Mississippi into Missouri.
On the Chester side is a statue of “Popeye” in the honor of the character’s creator, a Chester native.
BTW, reference to Barack Hussein Obama’s name is less to the matter of “stupid” and more to the matter of the presidential candidates integrity and truthfulness on the matter.
Obama’s integrity and truthfulness on the matter *WILL* be a big issue as the campaigns move forward.
But I will abide. Thanks.
OK … let’s see if I have this right … Obama is basically recommending the same actions that GWB has been following for years … he’s just changing the names of the countries involved … sounds pretty wishy-washy to me … can’t even come up with an original approach to the problems they like to complain about …
Guess it is sort of like trying to convince a spouse to do something they disagree with … keep hinting until they eventually think it is their idea … from “no way” to “okay” in no time …
As for the Superman thing … sorry … more like Jimmy Olsen IMHO …
Back in the 80s Paducah’s airport was notoriously unsafe for small pilots, er i mean, small planes with pilots in the little cockpits. Anyways, there was a joke that went like this: What’s the sound made by a pilot hitting the tar mack at the airport? PAHHHH-ducah!
Anyways, all the Dhimmicrats will be flushed once they try to take credit for the emerging successes in Iraq.
“We didn’t de-fund the war, and look what happened! Was that brilliant or what?”
This crew grew up getting “partial credit” in PE class.
More like “underdog”?
(to the chorus of resounding Boos!)
Isn’t that the truth! He said it before he meant to say it and now he didn’t say what he meant to say and it is a conservative conspiracy and hate crime and…
So exactly how many countries do the liberals want to cut and run from?
bear1909 said:
I think in their case the “PE” stood for “Personality Embellishment”
DesertLover#54: Spot on! They can’t even get that right.
I think the Superman photo op came from the same professional who put Dukakis in the tank.
Nail, meet hammer!
When the Dims voted to kill “John Doe” there was an outcry. Then, “John Doe” was saved (due to said outcry) and Alan Colmes actually said on H&C;
The Dimocrats came in and saved the day (paraphrasing as I do not know the exact words but this is close). I was glad I was sitting down.
Gayle, Darlin! Top of the mornin to you. I see it the same way as you’ve said.
Here’s a next “YouTube” debate question for them:
“If you could be any cartoon character, who would you be?”
They’d all bite -er, I mean, answer the question.
Personal attacks - Read earlier on LGF and JW where Robert Spencer was misquoted by CAIR on CNN during a debate with Hitchens and Prager. Items that were posted on JW and deleted when found were quoted as being something Mr. Spencer said, not a commentor. It would seem to be a plant from a CAIR sympathyser(sp?) but nevertheless it looks bad for the website and it’s long battle to bring the truth of jihad to those of us that knew little about it before stumbling onto his website….
I agree 110% Michelle. Just look at what he’s been saying about any issue he’s addressed. There is so much to disagree with from his speeches and those so-called “debates”, I’m really not worried about what his name is. The whole attack line “oooh his name is Hussein” is really shallow and thoughtless, as you said. His answers to these questions are what matters:
Victory in the war?
Tax policy?
Immigration?
National Health Care?
Energy policy?
Transforming the military to meet the new threats of the future?
I can safely assume I won’t agree with his answers to any of those questions. That’s what this should be about, how does this nation move forward to security for our descendants?
Ripping the guy because of his middle and last name seems to me to be a little slimy, like Dick Morris slimy. I sense a similarity with the whisper campaign about Romney’s church affiliation, or even the TANG C-BS fabrication, accompanied by the DNC’s “Operation Fortunate Son” whispering about cocaine and special favors. People want to throw mud, and see what sticks long enough to personally damage a candidate, distracting from what really needs to be discussed, the issues facing us all.
You continue to prove the leftist smear merchants wrong, Michelle. You are so above their practices, especially on the web. Plus you out-host Screwball Matthews, Keith Olberdork, and Anderson Pooper all combined!
Keep the great work coming our way, and we’ll keep supporting you here and on FNC!
I’ve said it before, but it bears repetition: Barack Obama makes Dan Quayle seem positively Churchillian.
Suggesting a ground invasion of Pakistan reveals an alarming lack of awareness of what such a move would entail.
As others have noted, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. So a big part of any invasion planning would involve locating and securing or destroying those weapons. It also means that we wouldn’t be able to confine the zone of conflict to only the tribal areas; we’d be engaged in the whole country.
If Obama thinks that we could undertake a full-scale invasion of Pakistan by just redeploying the troops in Iraq (never mind about the consequences of that move), there still wouldn’t be enough.
The terrain of the tribal areas is so rugged that it could swallow entire divisions and we still woudn’t be able to fully secure things. Coupled with the competing need to neutralize the nukes elsewhere in Pakistan - and don’t forget the trouble we’d get from the Kashmir region - and it’d require a commitment of force the likes of which we haven’t seen since Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Trouble is, thanks to the 1990s “peace dividend” we’ve only got 10 active army divisions to pull that off with instead of the 18 divisions we had then. If anybody thinks we’re over-stretched as it is now … invade Pakistan and Iraq will be remembered as “The Happy Time.”
It’s astonishing that Obama would make such an ill-advised suggestion. He may hae eaten his Wheaties, but somebody forgot to get him that first cup of coffee.
HarryStar:
Bullseye!
[cluck - cluck - cluck]
(not the sound of a Ch*ck*nh*wk)
The sound of Liberal A$$e$, Suckin’ Wind.
Well, at least there’s something Obama considers worthy of deploying U.S. troops.
Preventing genocide? Nyah.
Stopping terrorist-friendly totalitarian dictators committing thousands of atrocities? No way.
Unauthorized invasion of a nation whose government is working with ours to ferret out terrorists hiding in its borders? We have a winner!
*boggle*
Absolutely right. Pakistan is an endlessly complicated country, both physical terrain, and to use a Gen. Petraeus term, human terrain.
Yes they have a nuke arsenal, but why do they have it?
India.
The largest democracy by population in the world, and a nation we are moving closer to finally.
What would India have to say about a complete upheaval in Pakistan?
Does Obama even consider that at all? How would that alter the improving diplomatic relations between the U.S. and India?
That’s only one angle to question this posture by Obama. Totally irresponsible position.
Nobody had to bring up his middle name to completely nuke this idea.
I was reminded earlier about HOW exactly we were able to get to Afganistan.
President Bush’s “You’re with us or against us” was relayed to Pakistan. That’s one of the reasons why were able to setup in Afganistan. Remember, we had no place to really setup bases in Afganistan. We had to get soldiers on the ground to setup runways, etc.
Anybody remember WHO made this possible??? Yes, Pakistan!!! They opened up their airspace to the U.S. because of President Bush.
Gee, do you THINK that they’re just going to keep it open after President Musharef is defeated/overthrown or he closes it up because of U.S. incursions????
Hey, maybe India will allow us to fly over their country to get to Afganistan. WAAAIIITTTT a minute!!!!!!
Pakistan is the only country that we can use to get toAfganistan.
Keep talking Senator, keep talking!! I can’t wait till the V.P. debates!!! LOL
Is Obama listening to the words that are coming out of his mouth?
Obama is in way over his head. The only reason that anyone knows who he is is because Jeri Ryan’s husband wanted to watch her assimilate in public. The only reason he is even a presidential candidate at all (despite being articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking) is that he is an “African-American.”
You make fun of Obama looking tough while supporting Bush, the genuine airhead whose physical fitness is his only positive quality.
If our troops are fighting international terrorism, let’s deploy them where the international terrorists are — Afganistan and western Pakistan.
You think you win an argument by trashtalk? You just make yourselves look stupid.
Is it OK to use his entire name? Like,
Barack Hussein Obama? It’s hard to see anything stupid about calling someone by their actual name. Is simply saying his name making fun of it?
Would Obama ever address the srtategic advantage of U.S. forces having Iran boxed in on three sides?
I don’t think so. I think he will avoid any tough talk about Iran, to placate the nutlibs who have been screaming for three years that Iran is just Halliburton’s next oil-rich target country for BushCo and friends. He’s just not a serious player in the national security debate. It’s all poll-driven talking points. That’s not leadership.
Nevermind that Iran is recruiting training, funding, arming and transporting resupply to anti-coalition elements in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing our Soldiers and Marines.
They are the enemy that must be dealt with, and Obama is nowhere on that topic.
Obama’s policy on invading Pakistan is irrational. If I have it right, the peace candidate wants us to pull out of Iraq because it was an unjust war. He does not care if thousands of Iraqi people are killed after the pullout, he just wants to pullout so that we can invade Pakistan who is a nuclear power and an ally in the war on terror. All this to end torture in Guantanamo bay and an unjust war in Iraq? We are already fighting the terrorist in Iraq, why would we pullout and invade another country to fight the same people?
Who makes themselves look stupid, lgm?
No response to any of the very important questions raised here about what would happen if we invaded Pakistan?
Why not have a “Pakistani face” on a Waziristan incursion, and co-operate with our allies? You have given up on the U.N., the global test, all that diplomacy from the ‘04 campaign?
No concern about another important and relatively new ally, India, the largest democracy on the earth?
I guess not. Just bash the President, and ignore the real war we are in.
I read this and had to laugh. Umm, are you not doing there very same thing?
No. But it does make you look like a remarkable @$$.
Okay, let’s see if I get this right. Invading Iraq - a sovereign nation who never attacked us - was a good thing, yet challenging our alleged ally to either put up or shut up is a potential disaster?
If you honestly believe Pakistan is “working with us”, you are delusional. They are making a mockery of us on the world stage by whispering sweet nothings in our ear whilst providing a safe haven for the very terrorists we are attempting to snuff out. They are the one country where Bush’s “with us/against us” policy makes sense, yet he continues to allow them to have it both ways.
Ref my #38 - Charles over at LGF just sat his posters down for a chat about abuse on his site. It’s on the Open Thread and he minced no words. If he has to delete 2-3 comments that person will be blocked. The shake-up with Robert Spencer @ Jihad Watch where he was quoted by CAIR to have said something that was actually a commentor, has pointed out to all hosts how vulnerable they are.
Let’s try and play nice in the sandbox. None of us want Michelle having to apologize to O’Reilly or Geraldo for something we did.
LGM.
Would you allow Pakistani forces to launch a strike against Pakistani extremists somewhere in the Mountains of Montana????
Ovously the answer is No. Pakistan is the same thing. They are NOT going to simply allow us to enter their country without severe political reprocusions.
So President Obama goes into Western Pakistan. Here’s a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION:
HOW is the U.S. going to get to Western Pakistan because they won’t be able to fly over Pakistan anmore!!!!!!!
P.S. The U.S. flies to Afganistan through….TA DAAAA…Pakistan!!!
President Obama invades Western Pakistan, the population goes NUTS over this and rises up to stop this. Maybe even overthrowing President Musharef.
Guess what??? Now we’re in Afganistan WITHOUT ANY WAY of supplying our troops!!!!
Take a look at a map of the Middle East and you’ll see VERY CLEARLY how wrong his comments are.
Am I the only one that thinks Obama wouldn’t even be on the radar screen if he wasn’t black..I fear his popularity is only that he IS black ..it seems that white guilt is making this guy more popular then he should be (that and the black community will vote for anyone black)… He seems like a nice enough guy…but look at his voting record..HE’S A STINKING LIBERAL…and, like most liberals (and, I hate to say it, too many conservatives)..he’ll say anything to be president…He has accomplished nothing except get elected to the senate(and we know that doesn’t make anyone that special or honest or competent). If anyone thinks that this guy will actually invade Afghanastan…they are as silly as he is…yeah..let’s piss off one of the few friends we have in the middle east…yeah…good idea…just to catch some silly muslim scum (Bin ladin)…he’s a not that important anymore….we’ve got bigger fish to fry…
You think there aren’t any international terrorists in Iraq? There most certainly are plenty of AQ fighters being sent in to humiliate the U.S. military on the world stage, and the Tet offensive is the model they will follow, and you are going to fall for it, hook line and sinker.
The AQ in Iraq group is being run from AQ HQ. The leader is a fabrication, a fictional character to mask the foreign command of AQ running the show. It was a sham to recruit Iraqis to be shahid, or martyrs. It’s not working. The potential recruits are turning in the foreigners to Iraqi and coalition forces or picking up a rifle and attacking them themselves, as revenge for the horrors that AQI has brought to their villiages.
Let’s elect Obama and abandon all of the people who are risking their behinds to bring into being a new Iraq for their children, and go invade an ally we already have. Do you really want to abandon the Iraqis for a third time?
This is Clinton’s chance to crush him like a bug. She made the fortuitous comment about his naivete and took some heat in the MSM for it, but now she can go after him. It will be interesting to see if she does.
Clinton’s been a flip-flopper all along about the war. I guess she’ll wait until the polls come out on this issue to see how she’s going to feel about it. After all, the polls are her compass.
I am supporting Barack’s candidacy.
LGM is correct. If you are going to deploy troops should you not deploy them against an enemy of the US, not an enemy of the Bush family? However, I believe diplomacy, like Barack endorsed, should be used to convince Pakistan to let us attack AQ.
I doubt very strongly MM and all of you would make fun of a Republican candidate for proposing the same thing. You’d all be saying, “Finally, there’s a tough candidate in the race.”
LGM is also correct in stating making fun of Barack’s manhood is not an argument. It is too easy to make fun of W (MIA at the Air Force Reserve) and Cheney (”I had other priorities in the ’60s).
gregorystephens
Yes, I agree. Oddly, it was the one thing I “liked” about Clinton. No cherished ideals, only polls, so he was easier to move on issues.
But that’s not leadership. It’s pandering. People that don’t know what they truly believe in scare me. I don’t want someone like that in the White House.
lgm, 1942:
Could you imagine having a president who’s morals and convictions were open to suggestion just as her husbands pardons were for sale?
Actually….No.
The problem/issue that many have is Senator Obama saying that “we should attack Al Qaeda wherever they are.
Guess what??? They’re in Iraq RIGHT NOW!!!! Are they flooding into Iraq?
If they are, that’s GREAT news?? Hey, why fly all over the place when they’re coming to us!!! No need to spray the house for termites when they’re all coming through this one area!!
That’s the difference
MikeB and lgm must have gotten the talking-points, but it’s a stupid position to take. The “we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, we would have invaded - fill in the blank (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Darfur, Saudi Arabia)” - is ludicrous. None of you would have done any such thing. It’s all hot air - simply a distraction from the business at hand.
MikeB when you say “If you are going to deploy troops should you not deploy them against an enemy of the US”, does that not include AQ in Iraq? When you say “I doubt very strongly MM and all of you would make fun of a Republican candidate for proposing the same thing” have you missed the point that the Dem candidates have all been against Iraq, they think we’re losing, we need to get our troops out, yet now they want to show they’re tough by proposing (not seriously of course) something as stupid as attacking an ally. You don’t really and seriously mean you want us to attack Pakistan do you? Do you? Then can we make fun of your candidate for proposing it?
Maybe you don’t remember that little operation Desert Storm, where Saddam invaded a small country for pillage and conquest, and that little country turned to the U.S. for help, and we helped, and Saddam engaged in a war against the United States of America, not just the Bush family you hack? He also tried to assasinate a former President of the United States of America and fired at American and Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones per U.N. mandate?
MikeB, that was exceptionally weak, even by your low standards of hackery.
Brian72 (87): Excellent points!
I respectfully disagree huggybear.
By way of example, another conservative blogger was called out by one of her “readers” for referring to Obama by his *given* name. She was told by her “reader” that Obama “inherited” his name and that it was ridiculous to make an issue of it.
But it begs the question and let’s Obama off a very big hook: his unwillingness to be clear and honest about his ties to Islam; and, the speciousness of his declaration that the religion does not figure into his present day configuration as a candidate for the President of the United States and the leader of the free world.
Let me ask you: is it even remotely possible that Obama’s get tough posturing against a Muslim nation has been driven by a perception of his campaign team that he is appearing soft on Islamicists and Muslim countries in general? So he overreaches and makes a real blunder in order to compensate?
References to Romney’s Mormonism don’t hold the same water given the current *lack of penchant^ among 20 something Mormon boys to blow things up in the name of the their main deity.
Is it distasteful that people make purely cutting remarks about Obama’s “inherited” name? Yes.
But what harm is done to the candidate or the debate re the war of Islam against the west (oops, some Muslims against the west)if the issue of his Muslim training is kept on the table?
Those who want to equate questions and statements about a Presidential candidates ties to Islam and Islamicists (his Chicago land deal as a case in point)with being “silly” “stupid” or assinine,is no sillier than the *necessity* of making an issue of American citizens of Japanese extraction, about their ties to our Japanese enemies during war time.
Further, if we are going to confuse debate with projecting onto others our own views of what it “makes them look like”, then I think we are passively aggressing, and indirectly ccontradicting, against the exhortations which tell us there are to be no ad hominem attacks.
The piling on concerning this matter, with the round about “makes you look like an *ss” remarks, looks like damage control because some adversary might be looking to *REINFORCE* a common and very public perception that conservative blogs are “hate sites”.
Well, damage control is transparent to those who would seek to do damage to said sites even if said sites were populated with a cavalcade of storied saints reincarnate.
Not to get in the middle of two “bears” fighting, but I’m going to have to side with bear1909. If everyone can make a big deal about Mitt Romney being a Mormon, why can’t the same be done with Obama’s ties to Islam?
Does anyone actually believe the U.S. is not capable of fighting the WOT on more than one front?
And I don’t think Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be much of an issue, either. We could easily pay someone over there to make them go away.
Brian, Brian, Brian, well all know that AQ in Iraq is a AQ-wannabe. They did not exist before 9/11 and the Shia in Iraq are doing a good job of keeping them in check.
Obama has a good point. Bush has never been particularly interested in fighting terrorism as evidenced by his open borders policy, punishing the secularist Uncle Saddam instead of bin Laden, fanatical support for Israel and the Jewish neocon strategy of “draining the swamp” for Israel instead of tending to U.S. business, preference for incompetent cronies over experts and people who get things done, etc.
However, you shouldn’t advertise your intentions in the manner of Barry Obama. You go quietly into Pakistan while they are still complacent.
Certainly seems to have fate on his side–his primary and senate election opponents self-destructed, leaving him the mystery senator from Mexinois unknown by the people of Mexinois, and the lib media hyped him from there. He does offer some contrast with the plastic pander bears, corporate puppets, public relations creations, and manipulators that are running. Is there anything like a statesman or a person of principle in Washington today? I can’t think of anyone I respect. Washington has become “Chicago on the Potomac” with the cronyism and insider deals.
Actually, because that’s just as wrong as well. It should be stated as such. No, it’s not the two wrongs don’t make a right speech.
It’s what America is supposed to be about with regards to any type of religous qualifications on race, color, religion.
HarryStar:
If we were talking about your everyday Joe I’d agree with you. But, since we are fighting a war on terror that is being waged against Islamic Fascists…I think in this case Obama’s ties to Islam are relevant. I want to say, however, that it can be done tactfully and respectfully without name calling; inherited or otherwise.
Gregorystephens:
We’re fighting a war against a specific group of extremists.
I “agree” (just a VERY small bit) for the following logic:
The “extremist” versino of Islam is something to be looked at.
The reason that I mention this is that the MSN often attempt to paint Republican/Conservatives as “extremists” (i.e. Anti-Abortion, etc.). These questions are always brought up to the GOP side and often ignored on the Democratic side (i.e. Dear Dem Candidate, if you believe in God, why would you support abortion).
I remember when the MSM was asking Joe Lieberman about being Jewish, I kept thinking how wrong it was as if somehow he wouldn’t be able to perform his duties.
Well, it’s different in this situation because Lieberman is Jewish and we weren’t attacked by Jews or even a very small group of Jews. Lieberman’s religion was being used to out him as a candidate by the MSM because politically, Lieberman is not far enough left for them. In this case with Obama, it has relevance. It would be like someone running for Prime Minister of Israel that had relatives that were Nazis. It wouldn’t mean that that person was one as well, but the people should be aware of it. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Exactly who is making an issue of Romney’s Mormonism? Last I checked, the only ones worried about it were the Christianist elite on the far-right, who are concerned that he’s not a true Christian. No one on the left that I am aware of has made an issue of it.
People keep citing Obama’s “ties to Islam”, yet no one seems to be able to provide evidence of it, nor explain how that would make him unfit for presidency if it were true. Having Hussein as a middle name or living in a Muslim country for a few years do not count. Anyone who makes an issue of that [or Romney's Mormonism, or Guiliani's multiple marriages, etc] is sidestepping the real issues, which are considerably much more important.
I finally got around to reading Sen Obama’s speach. It wasn’t all that bad except where he talked about spending money. I always cringe when politicians talk about spending money.
Yes, Sen. Obama has opened himself up to criticism based on what he has said about Pres. Bush not having complete plans for dealing with Iraq. The question for the Senator becomes, ‘OK what are your plans for “acting” on Pakistan if Musharraf will not?’
[Note: Sen. Obama said 'act' and not 'militarily invade' Pakistan. In true political fashion he left himself wiggle room just like Pres. Bush did when he 'believed' there were WMD in Iraq.]
Pakistan has certainly been an ally of ours, up to a point, on the GWOT. Sen Obama certainly must state unequivocally that he has a plan to do what he suggests and that the plan takes into account all the looming variables discussed in the postings of this BLOG article.
He did not offer much detail beyond his four point plan and spending billions of dollars on them.
It was good to learn that he is not opposed to all wars. And, that he supported going into Afghanistan to get Bint Laden and Al Qaeda.
Bottomline, Sen. Obama is doing what Pres Bush said he would do, but hasn’t, and that is going after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the religion or the perceived religion of these candidates alone would disqualify any of them. It’s just a topic that needs to be discussed. As far as Romney being a Mormon. Mike Wallace, who by the way is pretty far left, asked Romney all kinds of questions about his religion and even went so far as to ask if he and his wife had pre-marital sex. Would they even think to ask Hillary that? Or better yet would they dare to ask Hillary or Obama if they’d had extra-marital sex? I think not.
al-Zarqawi was not a wannabe, Mike.
And to further discredit your “wannabe” classification, tribal sheiks in Anbar province turned against *Al Qaeda*.
The same has happened in Diyala. Sources there abound saying that those who have turned to ally with the US turned against *Al Qaeda*.
-end topic
Obama’s name topic: my last words- huggybear, my points were not addressed.
The “name” issue and the “land/house” deal in Chicago will not be going away and will resurface as Mrs. Clinton and Co. get more desparate with the war turning in Iraq and Musharaf going after AQ in Pakistan.
They’ve been deprived of “It’s the economy stupid.” And now the war is going to drive them to more desperate scrutiny of issues glossed over.
ooooh, wait. those weren’t my *last* last words…
they were my last words on the topic of Obama’s name.
What’s in a name? Barack had stated before that his middle name was respected in the Muslim World and therefore given to him by his Muslim father from Kenya. He was raised as a Christian. So what “ties to Islam” are we talking about?
This is different from Romney who holds an important post in the LDS Church. However, personally, I believe a candidate’s religious beliefs are irrelevant. I would not vote against Mitt because of his religion, rather because he flips and flops more than an Olympic gymnist.
I’m not going to bother denying that Bush has been less than diligent in following up on his “with us or with the terrorists” pledge. It’s clear that he has been.
But to deny that he’s gone after the people who attacked us on 9/11 is just absurd.
Technically no one but god can truly go after the “people who attacked us”, because they all died during that attack. What we can do is go after the movement that spawned them, and even if his record isn’t perfect it’s not reasonable to deny that Bush has done that.
Now if only he’d stop with the socialism and open borders nonsense maybe I could feel good about supporting him.
Khalid Sheik Mohammad has been captured. How many al-Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed?
How many al-Qaeda ops were foiled or caught because of the NSA data mining operations disclosed by the NY Times?
I am amazed at how many opinions are based in the premise that “Iraq” was irrelevant to stopping al-Qaeda.
The US has how many *land-based* military installations on the ASIAN SUBCONTINENT(there is no *”Middle East” continent*)? And how far north are these located? How close to Iran? How close to China? And in what proximity to Russia?
What is more, al-Qaeda is more than Bin Laden and his circle of advisors.
The grander strategy, about which I know precious little, *appears* to be to have a limited military presence on the Asian subcontinent to check Russian and Chinese mischief, while maintaining a HUGE PAC-COM presence in the Pacific, to check Russian and Chinese mischief in the region, *and* have troops present in case they are needed in Thailand, Borneo, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Phillipines where Islamic fascists are attacking, on a near daily basis, friendly governments to the US.
In the meantime, take away Iraq and Afghanistan, preserve Pakistan, check Syrian threats to Israel, and Hezbollah expansion in Lebanon *by maintaining huge firepower capability with battle carrier groups in the Persian gulf. (I’m told by a Navy carrier vet that one carrier has the firepower to destroy 3/4s of the coastal real estate and infrastructure in California. Boom!)
I’d say under Bush’s watch more has been done than any Democrat, with the exception of ex-Democrat Lieberman, has taken the time to articulate in military terms.
It will be tough for any of the Democratic pack to look credible after jaw-boning against the President for 6 to 8 years; and, then having to say, well- uh- ya- duh- we should “build” on what’s already being done.
No-brainer, Dudes and Dudettes
PS: And for anybody who would make the argument that the “limited” military presence in Iraq has destroyed the National Guard or weakened it, I say this-
One of the largest problems of any army in US history has been to establish a core of battle tested soldiers in reserve units. For what lies ahead, this will turn out to have been a key tactic in going after al-Qaeda.
But of course, it has been knocked because no one from the Pentagon spoon fed it to the public and the media as “a strategy”.
Omission. Yes. It’s true. But speciously so. Was he schooled in a Madrasa far far away from Kenya? What sect ran the Madrasa? What was the affiliation of his teacher?
MikeB: there is more to the story if you care to investigate.
Boys should not be sent to do the job of men. Children should not try to be adults. Asking liberals to actually enforce a tough foreign policy is like asking children to grow up. They are simply not able. Like many idealistic children, the democrats are just not ready for prime time.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/liberals-are-rightjust-not-about-anything-that-matters/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/the-seinfeld-network-seinfeld-party-had-a-seinfeld-debate/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/liberals-and-sopranos-a-buildup-to-nothingness/
The world requires real world solutions, and with all respect to P.T. Barnum, I see the democrats offer foreign policy solutions and think, “Send in the clowns!”
I wonder if all 8 candidates get out of the same car when they go debate.
eric
Whoops! More words. DOH!
<