Way to go, Barack!
You know that “Obama for Change” t-shirt all the left-wing Hollywood starlets are wearing? They might want to get this photo via Yahoo! News silk-screened on the back:
It’s a scene from an anti-American rally in Karachi, Pakistan, on Friday, in response to Obama’s Macho Man remarks threatening to invade Pakistan whether they like it or not.
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has more scenes of what Barack has wrought. Somehow, I don’t think this is what Obama meant when he said we needed a “uniter in the White House:”
Yahoo! News/AP: Pakistani tribal protesters gather to condemn the U.S. presidential hopeful candidate Barack Obama’s remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Miran Shah, capital of Pakistan’s tribal area of north Waziristan along the Afghanistan border. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. Speakers told protesters that they will fight back in case of U.S. strikes.
Just a matter of time now before we see some big-time, dhimmi groveling from Barack to the Religion of Perpetual Outrage lobbyists.
***
I guess because his campaign isn’t farcical enough, Obama has decided to appear on “The Daily Show.” He’s scheduled on August 22.
***
Condoleezza Rice tries to douse the flames Barack poured fuel on.
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
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Thanks For Taking Diplomacy To A Whole New Level Obama!
- Neocon News » New Sheriff in Town
- Riehl World View
- Barack's Already Bringing Peace to the World!
- Bill's Bites
- Obama the Healer | BitsBlog
- First Round | August 6, 2007 : The Shot! @ shotpolitics.com
- Barack Obama, daft diplomat extraordinaire « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Election Geek: Currently Following the 2008 Presidential Elections
- Uh-Oh… « Have Wall, Bang Head
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
Oh, Stewart will have fun with this…
I know a lot of folks don’t care for him, but I actually rather enjoy the guy.
And man. What a great Statesman Obama is. *rolls eyes*
I actually REALLY want this guy to get the Dem’s nod. Crap like this would be sooooo easy to beat. And he might resign his Senate seat, freeing Illinois from his idiocy.
Rush Limbaugh’s ace satirist Paul Shanklin came up with “Yakkety Yak, Bomb Iraq.” The new version should be, “Yakkety Yak, shut up Barack!”
“Maybe we should bomb Pakistan…
I must admit I have no plan…
Yakkety Yak, shut up Barack!”
(oh goodie, I know my blog column for tomorrow, Thank you Double-M!)
The only good coming out of this is that it shows the difference between children (the democratic debates) and adults (the republican debates).
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/republicans-debate-aka-an-adult-discussion/
Respectfully,
eric
No doubt, Sen. Obama is a feather-weight when it comes to statesmanship.
Obama is over.
The fringe are having a field day calling him “Obama the Bomber”.
He’ll move further to the Left now in reaction to their chastisements. He’s been in reactive mode for a few weeks now and not doing well.
From another vantage point, the rest of the Dems should have a look at how the darling of their 2004 convention is being received in the “Muslim world”.
How will they fare? And will they really feel confident removing those troops in the spring?
Things are looking up.
A .22 cal mind in a .45 cal world…
Perhaps Barack can use this lesson to further refine his newly emerging machismo. Either that or his brain pacemaker (Device wakes man with severe brain injuries) is not fully functioning yet.
There once was a DEM named Barack,
Who said we should mount an attack,
“Pakistan Here I Come”
Said this man who’s so dumb,
He’s surprised now at all of the flack.
Yes it’s the same old Obama,
The Dumbo that wants to do Drama,
He keeps trying to tweak,
All that DEM double-speak,
Hard to do with the brains of a Llama.
Hey – imagine a Hillary and Obama ticket.
One wants to redistribute wealth, the other wants to invade nations.
The hilarity of such a campaign would make me wonder if the Democratic party had anything left to offer this country at all. We know they’ve got nothing of value to offer us…
Actually, like one of the posters at Jawa Report (Good Lt. or Rusty — forget which), I agree with Obama on his statement that we just may need to invade Pakistan if Pakistan does not clean up the Taliban-infested Waziristan regions. (However, I respectfully differ with Obama on his predicate statement: That we need to *ABANDON* Iraq first. Huh? Why do we want to abandon Iraq? That is just plain dumb.)
However, I am not in the least worked up that Obama’s statement started some riots in Pakistan. After all, isn’t it Michelle Malkin who calls Islam the “Religion of Perpetual Outrage?”
I mean, what DOESN’T set off waves of outrage in Pakistan, if not Danish cartoons, or books critical of Islam, or one thing or another?
Remember: It was Pakistan who gave us “Islamic Rage Boy,” forever immortalized by the boys at thenoseonyourface.
I say: Let them rage. Obama shook them up. Kudos to Obama.
Agreed With # 9. I don’t know what’s with all the criticism of Sen. Obama’s statements, including on these discussion forums. Whether he was being facetious or not, Sen. Obama said what many have been thinking: SOMETHING HAS GOT TO BE DONE ABOUT THE DE FACTO SANCTUARY FOR ISLAMIC THUGS BEING SHELTERED BY TRIBES AND ELEMENTS OF THE ISI (Pakistani intelligence services). The insurgency in Afghanistan can only survive with the succor and respite given in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Senator Obama just stated the obvious of what needs to be done if the Pakistani government doesn’t exert its authority over its ENTIRE TERRITORY. Perhaps, he should have said it behind closed doors and not on the campaign trail, but in terms of substance, Senator Obama was dead accurate on this one.
Barack, smooth move exlax!!!!!!!! Diplomacy at work.
Life lessons 101b rule 3, don’t make a tough situation worse.
Making Americans less safe because you’re more interested in presidential power than being the leader and protector of America?
Pathetic.
“Substance”? Abandon Iraq and go into Pakistan with or without approval of Musharraf.
Who is thinking that?
Is there a problem with Pakistani, Saudi, Egyptian, Syrian, and Iranian aid and comfort to Islamic terrorists?
Yes.
Does it mean the US is fighting the wrong fight by depriving the Islamic jihadists of their choice of geography in which to seat their Caliphate?
No.
Obama’s remarks fall short of the mark. Why? Because his “strategy” or “new idea” about the WOT is motivated by his running for President, not to aid the effort of ending the jihad against the United States. As long as he is motivated by his quest for the White House, and his slick PR campaign to sell himself to the American electorate, very little he has to say about Pakistan or any other safe haven for terrorists (and there are more than just Pakistan figuring into the “succor” logistics) there is no semblance of any substance to his rhetoric.
He must be trying to emulate the success of Bush’s presidency in the Islamic world….
Tried And True Adage Lots Can Learn From
What was it Teddy Roosevelt said — “Walk softly but carry a big stick”?
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anyone else notice the Media brought up Tancredo 2 YEAR OLD comment on nuking Mecca to deflect from this? I did a google search and there are more articles about Tancredo 2 year old as comment as recent news then then Sen. Obama’s.
Which of these 2 people are leading in the polls and has change to get elected President and deserve more coverage? Which did the Media blow off and decide not to cover? Has anyone seem coverage on his comments on CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS?
Impressive. If this is what he can do just as a candidate, imagine what he can do as Leader of the Free World.
Nuke Mecca? Obama will have that done BEFORE his inauguration. Then the REAL fun begins.
I’m guessing he declares war on Canada, or something equally inspired.
When Hillary Clinton looks stable in comparison, you know you’re truly dealing with the fringe…
Random comments:
- Mitt Romney nailed it yesterday. Barack Hussein Obama needs to figure out whether he’s Jane Fonda or Dr. Strangelove.
- Continuing on Hussein Obama; right sentiment on Pakistan, wrong method of expressing it. You don’t single out the backward country you want to bomb back to the 6th Century at least until the planes are in the air and preferably not until after said country re-enters the 6th Century.
Of course, bear1909 nails it above. Hussein Obama’s words on the WOT are just that; words meant to get him into the Oval Office. Given his limited pacifist track record, I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw him.
- The latest Islamokazi anti-American rage will just make many of those lefties want the “Barack for Change” shirts all the more.
- Speaking of the rage, runningonfumes nails it above. What wouldn’t they rage about?
The Pakistanis would protest one of their citizens playing tennis against an Israeli, and they have. They really don’t need an excuse to burn an American Flag.
Sen Obama has merely restated what Pres Bush has said, and is actually our policy on the subject of terrorism, that we will get the terrorists where ever they are. Dead or alive. You are with us or against us.
Pres Bush offered no caveats or qualifications about going after the terrorists. He did not say, we won’t pursue every terrorist especially if they are hiding in Pakistan, … or Saudi Arabia, … or Egypt, etc. They are our allies, and well … they are with us, but not when it comes to certain terrorists.
Nope. It is our policy to pursue the perpertrators of 9/11.
Here’s the kicker. Rudy Guilliani agreed with the substance of Sen Obama’s statement and offered that maybe he could have said it better. Gov Romney tried to make a joke of it, but also agreed that we should persue the terrorists.
If you want to get Osama Bint Laden, then you will agree with Sen Obama. It is just too bad that Pres Bush doesn’t agree with Sen Obama, even though it was Pres Bush that established the policy.
Pres Bush has been inconsistent on the GWOT.
#9 and #10. Let us not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Any invasion by U.S. forces will likely result in a coup in which Islamists take over. And the worst thing imaginable is an Islamist with nuclear missiles at their disposal. I think Obama mama must have forgotten that tiny detail, which is exactly why he is so “naive.”
presto -
Yes, Rep Tancredo first made that statement awhile ago. He then repeated it last week at one of his campaign events. His statement was not dredged up to deflect from what Sen Obama said. And, the media, as well as, the BLOGS have covered it.
Steveegg -
Gov Romney was trying to be funny. Politicians should leave the jokes to the comedians. Had he read the text of Sen Obama’s speach he would already know that Sen Obama is ‘Jane Fonda’ on Iraq and ‘Dr. Strangelove’ on Afghanistan. There are several fronts on the GWOT, of which these are just two.
Moreover, if Sen Obama’s speach had been read and fully comprehended, everyone would know that Sen Obama said “act” on Pakistan, and not ‘unilaterally invade militarilly.’ ‘Act’ has wiggle room that many politicians look for, and includes covert actions, withdrawing monetary support, seeking sanctions, etc.
Don’t be afraid to quote someone, just be cautious when assigning motive, intent, and meaning.
Sen Obama said “act” on Pakistan
I screwed the quoting up, ooops
He was asked by a reporter if he stood by his 2 year old statement, not that he repeated out of the blue. Again the Media decided to bring it up again after 2 years and there are MORE news articles on that then on Obama’s statements. It is not that Obama statements were not covered, it was how much coverage was given to his statements verses Tancredo.
Please enlighten me to any articles out there the followed up on Obama and his statement on invading a Nuclear power, because I have not seen them.
If you are going to slant what you think he ment by it then do as you stated and QUOTE IT.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html
“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.”
Sorry no, he was NOT talking about “withdrawing monetary support, seeking sanctions, etc.” but MILITARY action.
Geez, We don’t even need a Pied Piper the Dems are going off the end of the Pier one by one like there on a conveyor belt.
ajmontana
Long Walk … Short Pier … I like the image … LOL
presto -
I have seen coverage on both. In fact, what Sen Obama said was a topic of discussion at the Republican debate. I don’t recall much time being spent on Rep Tancredo’s comments.
As for bringing up what was said two years ago by a politician, that is nothing new. It is done all the time, by all media outlets on all politicians. Some media outlets will repeat something a politician said, or did, ad nauseum, even if it happened ten years ago. It is just the way things are.
Fair enough. Let’s be specific. What Sen Obama was referring to were drones armed with missiles. He was not referring to ‘boots on the ground,’ or tanks, or bases, or taking and holding territory in Pakistan. He was not saying our military would march into Islamabad.
We agree that there are several ways to ‘act.’ Focusing on and assigning meaning to the word ‘act’ to mean only one thing is an over simplification.
The reality is, we are already flying drones over the Pakistani Province of Waziristan. What we are not doing is pulling the trigger without Musharraf’s approval.
We have already taken out elements of Al Qaeda in Waziristan using these drones. Should more elements of Al Qaeda become identified why would we wait for Musharraf to say shoot?
Should Osama Bint Laden wind up in the cross hairs of a drone, I don’t want anyone to call Musharraf and ask, ‘can we pull the trigger?’ I want Osama Bint Laden dead. Do you?
As stated by Pres Bush, our policy is to take out the terrorists who had a role in attacking us on 9/11. Pres Bush said ‘you are with us, or with the terrorists.’ There were no caveats or qualifications.
What a buffoon!
Yes he has. I think that largely has to do with an opposition party and media establishment that would rather see America lose than Bush win, but that’s beside the point.
The main point here is when you have a nuclear armed country that’s little more than a heartbeat from being taken over by Jihadis you don’t publicly provoke them. That’s beyond dumb, beyond naive. It’s insane.
Again, IF you have information please Link it. First you stated he was not talking about military action and now it is armed drones. Please enlighten the rest of the readers here to where you are getting this inside information from on Sen. Obama statements and their meaning.
Let me repeat what you said:
I quote and then you assign motive, intent and meaning. Are you even reading what you write?
Oh you hit up on one of my biggest problems with the Democrats who state this also.
It is my opinion he died back in Dec 2001. The guy was a media whore who released a video and statements every month from Sept to Dec 2001. We did a massive bombing campaign in Tora Bora in Dec 2001 and not a single word has been heard from him.
Actually osama-obama has a .177 cal mind in a .357 world.
Sort of like a punk with a rubber band gun going up against a GYSGT Carlos Hathcock Marine Sniperextraordinare.
“Dhimitude or Freedom-Your Choice!”
Since when have Dems been so blood thirsty? I love it, maybe there’s hope for them yet! Naw, let me get a grip on myself.
Let’s back up here. Maybe BO IS onto something. I’m 100% behind a Canadian action. Everyone knows their border guards are unarmed and only harrass Americans. Their military is long dismantled by the left. It will be a bloodless cakewalk. Their taxes could be put to much better use funding the U. S. military which protection they enjoy free today.
After reading more from the loony left and in homage to DK posters:
Don’t forget the two-letter acronym for Barack Obama is BO. Entirely appropriate.
presto -
I am not sure what you want to me to link to.
Sen Obama said, ‘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.’ How do you think we were going to act? How do you think that chance would have been pulled off?
We had acted before using drones over Pakistan. Anyway, here’s a link that discusses predator drones. My bad, I thought it was common knowledge that we had alternative platforms (drones and CIA) in Pakistan to deal with terrorists.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/07/pakistan_protests_but_knows_th.html
I did not make my point very clear about quoting etc.
Sen Obama said -
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
Sen Obama did not say -
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t militarily invade, we will.
Sen Obama did not say -
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t drop fluffy stuffed animals, we will.
That is what I meant about quoting someone and not assigning motive, meaning, and intent. Changing his words to exaggerate and paint an entirely different picture from what was exactly said is not helpful, nor is it intellectually honest.
I am curious about one of your biggest problems, is it still a problem when Republicans say it?
Mr. Obamination should stick to playing with his Crayons.
As promised, a satire that would hopefully make Rush Limbaugh proud.
“Yakkety Yak, Don’t Talk Barack!”
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/yakkety-yak-dont-talk-barack/
eric
How about something like:
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=6891139
The only thing Sen. Obama won’t attack (which is committing an Act of War) Pakistan with is nuclear weapons. I suggest you learn what is considered “An Act of War” in todays world.
I do not know of any Republican stating they are willing to commit an Act of War on a Nuclear Power who also is our Ally now.
How about something like:
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=6891139
The only thing Sen. Obama won’t attack (which is committing an Act of War) Pakistan with is nuclear weapons. I suggest you learn what is considered “An Act of War” in todays world.
I do not know of any Republican stating they are willing to commit an Act of War on a Nuclear Power who also is our Ally now.
Hmm double post there for some reason. Could an admin please fix that. Thanks.
Presto -
I believe you read and understood my most recent post. Thank you.
The link you provided had nothing on predator drones and it was short on quotes from Sen Obama and had no links to the speach he gave. But OK, Sen Obama reaffirms his position to go after the terrorists, and their supporters, who attacked us on 9/11.
OK, changing gears and taking a tangent -
Actually, Pres Bush said as much and I stated it in one of my earlier posts.
It is our policy, established by Pres Bush, to go after the terrorists where ever they are. It is called pre-emption and that is what was done in Iraq. Yes, there were bells and whistles that had to be rung along with hoops to be jumped through, but it was done and we attacked (invaded, liberated, whatever) Iraq.
Although, I have stated it before, Pres Bush mentioned no caveats or qualifications about going after terrorists.
He simply said, either you are with us, or against us (with the terrorists). He did not say anything about allies and nuclear weapons being an acceptable position for us not go after the terrorists and their supporters.
No, I think I want to hear your definition…
This should be good.
And Nuclear weapons off the table???
When were they ON the table? Did I miss a day? When was it suggested we start lobbing nukes around to kill indivual terrorists and small groups????
Barack Obomba
Well, George Bush, for one. But if anyone would screw it up, it would be him. Let’s hope there’s no “actionable intelligence” until 2009.
Incidentally, everytime GWB does something like this – in this case, parroting a comment from a Democrat who just took a highly pubicized pummeling from the right for saying it – I become increasingly suspicious the man is a plant from the left. He’s taking the entire conservative movement down the tubes with him.
Seriously, anyone who mocked Obama for his comments on Pakistan looks pretty silly now that Bush just said the exact same thing today. Unless of course they mock Bush for it now, too. But I won’t hold my breath.
Er, that should be “publicized”, not “pubicized”. Ooops.
My definition what I learned at OCS and explained in 18 USC CHAPTER 113B
If we armed a drone and flew it in another countries air space without their permission and attacked a target it would be an act of war. Got it now?
Well the Media loves to distort things don’t they? I decided to use a US media source because the Guardian really warps things normally.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/bush.karzai/index.html
While the Media tried to make it sound like he would do it with their permission just like Sen. Obama, that is NOT what he said. This is just like the “Mission Accomplished” statement that never happened, but the media promoted as him saying.