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
- REPORT: U.S. CHOPPERS STRIKE TARGETS IN SYRIA - Page 7 - Benzworld.org - Mercedes Benz Discussion Forum
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
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!
For what it’s worth, that’s accurate. A modern US carrier is the biggest can of non-nuclear whoopass ever created by man.
You’d be hard-pressed to find someone with less respect for Obama than I have, but things like this sound a little too much like the “we need to know how much loyalty (insert hated neocon du jour here) owes to the Jews / Israel” for my taste.
If Obama has some specific ties to an Islamist organization by all means let’s hear it. But the man has more than enough incompetence and wrong-headed ideas we can concentrate on. No need for slurs or insinuations.
BlackTyg, yes, those liberals like FDR, HST, are incapable of leading us in times of war. I guess WWII doesn’t count. And, didn’t RMN do a bang up job in Vietnam or W in Iraq?
You’re not honestly suggesting that anyone in today’s Democratic party even vaguely resembles those past Presidents?
Obama= empty shirt, I doubt anyone will remember his name in three years.
What slur? What insinuation? There are conflicting stories about his upbringing in the faith of Islam. And Obama has not clarified to the extent that he should. It will be an issue moving forward.
Again: where is the slur in this? Where is the insinuation?
I will agree to disagree.
Out.
Trying to toughen up his image by invading a sovereign nation? Last week he was ready and willing to play patty-cake with America’s enemies.
He’s been demanding our troops be brought home from Iraq. So very suddenly, they’re ‘out of Iraq and into Pakistan’?
This damn fool is all over the place now.
And there goes the fascist vote.
The man wrote 2 autobiographies. What more clarity do you need? I have yet to hear any cogent challenges to Obama’s own story, other than his middle name, which is an utterly pathetic diversion from the real issues.
Wild-eyed speculation without any supporting evidence is insinuation. Assuming any ties to Islam – however distant, however innocuous, however artificial – automatically makes a person a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer is about as slurry as a slur can get. Particularly when you are speaking of a presidential candidate. There should be no place for this kind of slander in American politics.
Challenge the issues all you want, keep the personal attacks to yourself.
Your photo of Obama is messed up, Ms. Malkin. Here, I fixed it.
Oh, well, that certainly settles the nagging questions.
I mean we’re talkin’ not one, but two, “autobiographies” by a 45 year old here!
Barack Obama’s middle name has nothing to do with this. No serious policy person has a problem with him because of his name, his race, or any other irrelevant externality.
What is relevant is that he is an empty suit. Yes, he speaks brilliantly. However, behind all his lofty rhetoric “new ideas” are the same liberal prescriptions to solutions that have failed for the last 40 years.
There is no reason to hate, or even dislike, Obama. I am sure he is a nice guy, and well intentioned. However, on the big issues of our time, he is simply wrong.
Respectfully,
eric
Huggybear: three little but very powerful words is why i raised the issue in the first place. You refer to
“Obama’s own story”.
As a voter, I don’t have to accept a politicians story, the same as I don’t have to accept his omissions about his real estate deals in Chicago.
His story is getting so slick he has out a glossy “HOPES AND DREAM” coffee table magazine to market the story. I have a bad feeling about him.
Let me try it a different way with you, Huggybear, in case you are still reading-
Muslim names aren’t just religious, they are spiritual. The same goes for American Indian names: they are spiritual. They have meaning in that context.
My question about Obama’s first and middle names is what do they mean to him as their bearer?
Mine means “Servant of the Sacred”.
I live in a secular world most of the time. But that name does not cease to have meaning. Not the literal meaning. But how one lives ones life.
I can follow the Constitution. But my name has currency in the world I walk in.
So does “Barry’s”.
His story “Oh! I’m not Muslim. I was raised Christian” raises a red flag with a voter like me.
Is that a smear on my part? Is that enough evidence of a tie to Islam?
Trying to offer these points as respectfully as I can, and not step on anybody’s professional toes in the process.
But being referred to as “wild-eyed” and having no “evidence” cuts my perspective out of the picture entirely- leaving only room for the courtroom style rhetoric, nothing but the facts, we know what truth is and what it isn’t kind of sparring.
No thanks. There is more to this election than what some people want to deal with.
That may be true. But that doesn’t define this voter’s perspective.
Policy has sold me and my kind out repeatedly from both sides of the aisle.
I don’t raise the point to knock him out of what he must win on his own merits. Addressed in my previous message to Huggybear.
Brian72,
In WW II the Germans were in African, and Rommel busy earning the nickname “Desert Fox”, before the United States entered the war. By the time FDR ordered the invasion and Eisenhower headed up Operation Torch there was a very strong German military presence in Africa.
I don’t know that I disagree with your point, but your analogy in this case doesn’t perfectly fit.
Putting aside for a moment the stunning stupidity of this statement, let’s ask ourselves how this empty suit is even on the radar. Simple: a Harvard educated lawyer who couldn’t practice law or teach got bored doing social service “community building” in Chicago and decided to go where all scoundrels go: politics. He ended up in the State Senate, since getting black votes in Chicago when you’re a “black guy” from Harvard isn’t real tough to do.
After a couple of remarkably undistinguished terms pushing socialist ideas around in Springfield, someone talked him into running for a vacated U.S. Senate seat. His opponent in an overwhelmingly Dem state was a bright, ambitious and rich young conservative with an Irish name. Tough draw.
But then a funny thing happened. The Chicago Tribune went to court, suing to open the sealed divorce court record for his opponent’s contentious divorce from yummy actress Jeri Ryan. Turns out Jeri had made some titillating claims in court about Mr. Wonderful wanting to doink her at sex clubs, or some such. Him and everyone else, is my thought.
But in conservative politics, it was too creepy, and his campaign fell apart. Here’s where it gets really weird: the IL GOP, looking for a replacement in this very important race, goes to firebrand Alan Keyes of Maryland, and gets him to come to Illinois (to balance the “race card”, I guess), and of course, he gets slaughtered.
Since we like all of our people to be racially mixed now, the brown Obama with the smooth speeches about “hope” and a “different kind of politics” wows the national media — oh, did we mention that he’s a leftist? — and here we are.
So when I review this in my mind, my first instinct is to curse Ryan for screwing up, but then I drop down to the leftists at the Tribune, and the judge who released the trial records.
But, actually, we have an idiot like Obama in the Senate and running for President and invading Pakistan for one reason: the Illinois GOP is defunct.
bear1909(#105) and James Felix (#104),
Nope. Osama Bint Laden and Mullah Omar are still enjoying their freedom in Pakistan. Think back to some of what Pres. Bush said in regards to terrorists – bring them to justice, dead, or alive. Hasn’t happened to these two and that is what Sen. Obama wants to do.
The movement has it’s roots in the Wahabi sect of Islam located in Saudi Arabia. If you truly believe in going after the movement, then you will have to go into Saudi Arabia. If you want to go after where the movement is being widely practiced, then you will have to go into Waziristan Province of Pakistan. That is what Sen. Obama wants to do.
I don’t know. However, there are at least two more that should be captured and killed.
?
I don’t know. However, we know that plots (and more about the details of these plots) have been spoiled by local law enforce and observant citizens.
There were far more Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than in Iraq in 2001. We could have stayed in Afghanistan and let Al Qaeda come to us there vice us going into Iraq and letting them come to us there. [Note: The premise here is that they are coming into Iraq, so they weren't there to begin with.]
Absolutely true. Yet, they are complicit in 9/11 and should be brought to justice. Do you agree? Then you will agree we should live up to Pres Bush’s stated commitment and to what Sen Obama suggested.
Pres Bush has failed here, too. What did the US do last summer when Israel went into southern Lebanon to retrieve their two kidnaped troops? Nothing. Pres Bush has been inconsistent and has failed to live up to his statements.
HUH? Who else has been on watch since 9/11? Sen. Lieberman is one of 535 voices expressing their opinion on how to skin this cat. And, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Not if they agreed with only going after the perpertrators of 9/11. Yet, they may also say tear down what was not necessary in the pursuit of the 9/11 pepertrators.
I think it fits in this respect: Al Queda is in Waziristan, and it’s a touchy situation to get them there. The leadership there are sending people to Iraq to defeat America. They want the rivers, the Gulf port, and the oil for their Caliphate capital.
Hitler sent Rommel to Africa to capture the oil sources from the British empire. Churchill saw the strategic importance of North Africa, particularly Egypt to the survival of the Allies. Monty stopped the Nazis cold at El Alamein.
The common principal is that you fight the enemy where you find them. Al Queda has their own “Desert Fox” expeditionary campaign in Iraq, so why should we abandon that battle that AQ says is their main strategic objective? Why should we leave the field of battle and hand them the victory they have arranged themselves for?
To me the parallel is Churchill didn’t ignore Africa to concentrate on liberating Europe. He saw what the Nazis were up to, and moved to counter it and prevent Hitler from obtaining the oil sources, and Mediterranean sea routes that would have been very helpful to the Axis.
Does anyone seriously think that America should focus only on Waziristan, to the exclusion of everywhere else? AQ is an international terrorist organization, operating on every continent, all over the world. We have troops in the Phillipines, the Horn of Africa, all over the world. Should their missions be cut off to redeploy to Pakistan, without consulting the Pakistanis? NO. We fight these barbarians everywhere we can, all at once. That includes Iraq because AQ themselves have said that if they can run us out of Iraq, that’s their greatest hope for a restoration of the Caliphate, “Islam’s greatest battle in this era.” What happens to AQ globally if the U.S. denies them that victory, not to mention what that means for the Iraqis themselves?
This is a world war. There is no forgetting one theater for the other. We fight them in Iraq, East Africa, the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia, and even the Carribean Islands now. You quit Iraq, you quit the GWOT’s main theater of battle, both militarily and ideologically. That means America loses, both militarily and ideologically. If that’s what happens, this war will move into Europe and North America.
First of all I sincerely doubt that either of those men are “enjoying their freedom”. If they’re alive at all they’re in deep hiding and afraid to go near a cell phone. And because we have not yet succeeded in catching them doesn’t mean we haven’t gone after them, which is what you said.
So, you’re suggesting that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia? Are you actually saying that an infidel army marching on Mecca and Medina would convince the Muslim extremists to knock it off because the school that educated them is now closed?
You think Bush is wrong on Iraq but you’re advocating the invasion of two nominal allies, one of whom is nuclear armed and the other with Islam’s two holiest cities and the ability to inflame over a billion people against us.
I don’t know if you’re insane or just foolish, but either way you’re unworthy of further debate. I deeply hope that no one with your opinions ever gets anywhere near the Presidency.
Well said, I think that goes for all these democrats running for C-n-C of the USA, judging by what they are choosing to say about the war effort.
Thanks, James Felix. Saved me a lot of carpal tunnel today
This is new on Drudge from Obama:
“Obama said in grilling with AP reporter Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons ‘in any circumstance’… ‘I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,’ Obama said, with a pause, ‘involving civilians’ Then he quickly added, ‘Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table’…”
Any circumstances????
So, I guess, if N. Korea or Iran should fire a nuke at us and Obamamama was President, then we would just stay in our bunkers and wait for submission.
JamesFelix, bear199 and Brian72 -
I want to be very clear.
I am placing Sen. Obama’s statement on Pakistan within the framework set up by Pres. Bush. Sen. Obama is suggesting another front on GWOT. The front that would result in our capturing Bint Laden and Omar.
Pres Bush said, ‘… with us or with the terrorist …’ – ‘ … dead or alive …’ – ‘ … will go after the terrorists and those who support them …’
If you agree with Pres Bush then you have to agree with Sen. Obama. The difference is, Sen. Obama did not extend the Bush Doctrine beyond those who planned, took credit for, and executed 9/11. Pres Bush painted with a really big brush, Sen. Obama is just using a smaller brush.
I still would prefer to see them dead, despite whatever their lifestyle might, or might not, be. Do you agree?
Yes, they were pursued … unsuccessfully. The pursuit should continue until they are found and killed. Pres Bush said it, now Sen Obama is saying it. Do you agree the pursuit should continue?
No. However, if you followed the Bush Doctrine, there would be no question. The question then becomes was Pres Bush sincere about going after the perpertrators of 9/11 and their supporters, or not? Was he just offering frothy rhetoric and red meat? Is he being consistent? Is it as I suggested in my post #15 that there are terrorist, and there are terrorists that we don’t bother … because they are in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Answer any, or all of the above.
Listen, a terrorsit is a terrorist, and the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Do you agree?
No, I am suggesting that if you throw down a marker, establish a doctrine, that you live up to it. In that context, Sen Obama’s statement with regard to Pakistan is consistent with what Pres Bush has said. Do you agree?
And the extremist would knock it off because they would be dead. They would be dead because they support the terrorists, and yes that is what Pres Bush said, too.
Where have you read that I thought Pres Bush was wrong on Iraq? And, no I am not advocating going into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Please do not assign motive or intent, when you can simply ask a question. Do you agree?
I am talking about Sen. Obama’s Statement on Pakistan within the framework established by Pres Bush.
If Pres Bush were consistent and lived up to all that he has said, then we not only would have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, but we would have gone into Syria, gone into Lebanon to support Israel, gone into Saudi Arabia, gone into Pakistan, gone into Iran, gone into Gaza to kill Arafat, and gone into to other places where there are terrorists and their supporters, as well. Do you agree?
My opinion is that Pres Bush should say what he means and mean what he says. I would want any person that becomes President to do the same. Do you agree?
We do not have to debate any longer. I just wish you would answer anyone of my questions from a previous post, or a question from this one.
Does anyone take Obama’s posturing seriously for even one minute? This is the heights of hypocrisy.