Messiah: Hey, let’s invade Pakistan

posted at 11:35 am on August 1, 2007 by Allahpundit

Or “Afghania.” Whatever. McQ is aghast but then he’s always been queasy about irresponsible statements from warmongering unilateralist cowboys. I think it’s brilliant. Once we pull out of Iraq we’re going to have a huge manpower surplus from all the leftist cretins who’ve spent the last four years chanting “chickenhawk” running off to enlist so they can live out their dream of fighting the “real war on terror.” Put ‘em to use. There’ll be casualties and, yeah, an incursion into another Muslim country will hurt America’s “global image” and, sure, there’s a significant risk that it would push Pakistan’s moderate population into the radical camp — a point the left grasps in the context of attacking Iran, ironically, but not here — but they’ve been positively itching for this fight. It seems cruel to deny them.

Snark aside, here’s what he actually said (or planned to say per prepared remarks):

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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…

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists — probably in the tens of thousands — who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world’s most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

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.

Update: Silky’s spoiling for a fight too, but his is with the Real Enemy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Barack is simply out of his league. He has no understanding of the complexities of foreign relations (meet with our enemies whenever, wherever) nor does he seem to have a clue about how to go about fighting terrorism. Tracking down terrorists? Capturing or killing terrorists? Yeah, wire-tapping might help, but, oh wait, he’s against that…

wryteacher on August 1, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Obama is not credible at all. Once people start to understand he’s not really electable, any conservative will be able to beat him by telling everyone he will raise taxes.

Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are paper tigers. None are electable. The only thing they have going for them is that there’s nobody on the right who’s actually conservative. The only way they can win is by slinging dirt at any candidate, and they will no matter who it is. . . even if the right selects the Pope as its candidate, the Left will vilify him.

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Yes indeed. The way to rebuild our image on the Muslim street that Obama is always wailing about is to invade another Muslim country. And let’s take it up a notch, let’s invade a Muslim country where the gov’t and the military are riddled with jihadists and one that has nukes.

What a maroon.

JackStraw on August 1, 2007 at 11:44 AM

The one thing they are good at is taking money from other people – pan handling fund raising. Taxing and taking everyone’s ‘extra’ money for nothing in return is their calling card.

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Obama, are you kidding me? Say it is not so…the peace candidate is now going to invade a sovereign nation like Pakistan! SOMEBODY SLAP ME!

robo on August 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Let me get this straight: Before he goes invadin’, he’s going to talk to all the bad guys.

Then, he’ll pull us out of Iraq, creating a bloodbath and a new Al Qaeda nation. Finally, he’ll invade an islamic NUCLEAR nation without their consent?

Did I miss anything?

Darksean on August 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM

he leaves himself an out “actionable intelligence” i don’t think a democrat knows the meaning of it; personally.

lorien1973 on August 1, 2007 at 11:49 AM

This guy will be just as good as any other recent high school graduate with two or three years work experience at a fast food restaurant.

Labeling him inept and unqualified would be a gross understatement.

rplat on August 1, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.

So, we’re going to invade London too?

moonsbreath on August 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Wow… and I’m sure he’ll ask Congress first right?

Romeo13 on August 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Pure insanity. Does he want to destroy Pakistan? Does he want to go toe-to-toe with thousands of super-pissed off Pashtun tribesman? It’s a nation of 70 million. Some of the most inhospitable land in the world. It’s a military dictatorship with the Bomb trying to manage a vast society fragmented by ethnicity and religion.

BHO is either trying to score easy points against HRC and prove he’s not a weak sister on security, which makes him just another insincere, preaning political whore, or (gasp!) he’s really means it, which makes him an unstable warmonger who want to push the world into a full scale Clash of Civilizations. Gulp. Either way the man ain’t ready to be president. Please, please, please, someone stop him.

Thomas the Wraith on August 1, 2007 at 11:57 AM

The Democrats have a clear front runner in Hillary, Obama is a joke… Who do the Republicans have? Rudy, Mitt, Fred?

Republican side seems pretty divided. Im afraid this election will end up like the previous Democratic loss, where their whole battlecry was “Anyone but Bush”

It seems like the Republicans are using the same thinking in “Anyone but Hillary”

That line of thought didn’t turn out well in 04 and I doubt it will work in 08

Someone from the Republican side needs to step up and take charge

offroadaz on August 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Somewhat OT, did anyone see Keving Goddlington stick it to that dude from Maxim on Red Eye last night?

RightWinged on August 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM

I so enjoy listening to a liberal opine on war strategy.

It’s akin to hearing Corky discuss global economic policy.

Oh well, Life Goes On.

natesnake on August 1, 2007 at 11:59 AM

So, what is the reaction from the moonbats? Are they doing a 180?

Blake on August 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Wow… and I’m sure he’ll ask Congress first right?

Romeo13 on August 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM

And the UN too, right?

thebrokenchair on August 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

The Nutroots that Obama is trying to appeal to think President Bush was wrong to invade an enemy so he wants to invade a friend? Yeah that’s the ticket.

Tired of the knave so elect the naïve.

TunaTalon on August 1, 2007 at 12:03 PM

So, what is the reaction from the moonbats? Are they doing a 180?

Blake on August 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Keep it quiet. I hear Markos is meeting with Rupert Murdoch.

JiangxiDad on August 1, 2007 at 12:05 PM

So let me try and understand this.
MrDumboObama wants to invade Pakistan to get at AQ because of the lives of Americana’s lost to their terrorist attacks.

By that very same logic, is he prepared to invade Iran because of the Americans killed under orders of the Iranian leadership and their proxy army Hezbollah???

Is he also ready to seal the borders because of the Americans killed at the hand of illegals??

Oh my bad it’s all in the nuances right.

thanks Obama now i have a screaming head ache .

Mojack420 on August 1, 2007 at 12:10 PM

A full two-thirds of the Democratic front runners (Obama and Edwards) are such lightweights, it’s actually offensive. With all that is wrong with Hillary (and there is much), at least she and Bill arrived at a Machiavellian business plan for their political lives early on and have been pretty successful at executing it. Who would have thought she would actually appear to be the most qualified Democrat at this point in the process? The Carville team will leave nothing left of Silky and Messiah.

The Democrats have a clear front runner in Hillary, Obama is a joke… Who do the Republicans have? Rudy, Mitt, Fred?

So this is what it has finally come to. No one who inspires enthusiasm will ever run for President again.

Nosferightu on August 1, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Actually, I don’t have a problem with this particular position in the Pashtun region. We have allowed an incapable Pakistani military FAR too much leeway in dealing with the situation. If Pakistan were an ally, they would invite us there to take care of FOREIGN fighters on their soil. We should not have allowed them to let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. The US should have controlled the whole complex. Pakistan is not capable and that is why they signed the treaty. His position here is not necessarily bad, but his historical positions leave him not credible to make this statement. If we come out of Iraq without finishing, we have no business fighting anywhere else on foreign soil.

THAT SAID, Obama is not now, nor ever has been electable. He just has a knack for raising money. That’s the only thing that makes him viable. The only person he beat in an election for DC was ALAN KEYES. And Keyes actually did pretty good considering he ran a shortened campaign with little national support. I believe Duncan Hunter could beat Alan Keyes too (though I like some of Keyes’ ideas).

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 12:11 PM

And lo, our Lord and Savior Barack Obama said unto the crowd, “I shall pretend to wield the sword, like a mighty warrior until I begin my 4 to 8 year reign on America, so that I may expand the welfare state and undermine constitutionally protected rights. Woe and great lamentations will befall the wingnuts who try and stop me, for I am thy Lord and Savior.”

Bad Candy on August 1, 2007 at 12:12 PM

So this is what it has finally come to. No one who inspires enthusiasm will ever run for President again.

Pretty much. Raise the salary to a billion dollars/year and someone good will run. Till then, the best talent will work the free enterprise system.

lorien1973 on August 1, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Actually, I don’t have a problem with this particular position in the Pashtun region. We have allowed an incapable Pakistani military FAR too much leeway in dealing with the situation. If Pakistan were an ally, they would invite us there to take care of FOREIGN fighters on their soil.

Foreign fighters on their soil (especially the tribal areas) means civil war in pakistan. With the prize being nuclear weaponry – and musharaff being the only one who has shown the ability to play responsibly – I don’t think we’d want to risk some whacko heading up that country. Do you?

lorien1973 on August 1, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Let’s not forget that Pakistan has the technology to make nuclear weapons. Let’s not push them into a position of using them (or giving them to Jihadi suicide bombers) because we did a half-cocked invasion of Pakistan to root out some suspected terrorists.

If it was a good idea, don’t you think Bush would’ve done it by now?

The Left thinks it’s grand, but they never like Musharrif because he’s a dictator. It would be much better to replace him with a caliphate, in their opinion.

Nethicus on August 1, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Barrack shouldn’t feel to bad, Hillary! has broken stronger men than him. If he plays nice and stop with this crazy tough guy talk, she may even ask him to be VP but if you don’t the only offer he’ll get is Secretary of HUD.

Drew on August 1, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Just so you know….my chances of voting Dem are those of the famous ice cube in h–l. But, at least the guys finally figured out that terrorism is a top issue in this country. That’s more than many of his fellow Dems understand.

jeanie on August 1, 2007 at 12:24 PM

and musharaff being the only one who has shown the ability to play responsibly

I don’t know if you noticed or not but Musharaff’s time is limited at best. His term ends in December, and people have been calling for him to be overthrown. If you are basing not going in because we need Musharaff to be strong, you’re backing the wrong guy there.

The Federal Judge he canned was re-instated. The Red Mosque that he invaded and destroyed has been re-occupied. Musharaff isn’t responsible, he’s just doing whatever he can to maintain power. Next year this time we won’t be dealing with Musharaff as the leader in Pakistan whether we take care of our problem there ourselves or not.

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Does Obama’s statement now make it OK to officially jump off the deep end?

Cuffy Meigs on August 1, 2007 at 12:30 PM

He’s just preparing for when him and Hill have to run against Republicans so he can I’ve always been tough on terrorism.

terryannonline on August 1, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I don’t know if you noticed or not but Musharaff’s time is limited at best. His term ends in December, and people have been calling for him to be overthrown. If you are basing not going in because we need Musharaff to be strong, you’re backing the wrong guy there.

Musharraf ain’t going anywhere. General Musharraf.

JackStraw on August 1, 2007 at 12:36 PM

So obabyma is going to invade a country armed with nukes and if they say attack Kabul or India with nukes well be damn if civilians get killed.

I dont like that pakistan hasnt been a full partner in the WOT but it has helped captured some big wigs including sheik mohammmed.

William Amos on August 1, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Everytime Obama opens his mouth he reveals his density on the issues and loses votes. His handlers need to tell him to just waive to the crowd and smile for the cameras. Those are the only two things he’s good at doing.

Frank Nitti on August 1, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Great thinking Bare-eck…

Zach on August 1, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Sounds like BushCheney LoCal.

profitsbeard on August 1, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Musharraf’s Political Dilemma
May 08, 2007 02 00 GMT
…The government is watching how the protests have increased from the thousands to the tens of thousands since the crisis began a little under two months ago, and more important, the fact that the protests have not fizzled out.

Musharraf: Beginning Of The End

Actually his ‘term’ ends in Dec ’08, not this Dec so I was wrong there. But he’s on borrowed time by any stretch of the imagination.

Obama doesn’t have foreign policy skills to do it appropriately, but it is the right idea. AND it is the same policy that Bush is using (though I’d like to see a few more strikes on Al Qaeda in Pakistan from American drones). They feign outrage, we say ‘oops, sorry’. It’s been going on.

Obama doesn’t have credibility though.

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM

I agree with the “tough, smart” part, except for the “tough” and the “smart”.

thirteen28 on August 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM

No ‘true conservatives’ running for Prez? Someone’s not paying attention…

CliffHanger on August 1, 2007 at 12:59 PM

CliffHanger on August 1, 2007 at 12:59 PM

There are ‘true conservatives’ running, but their names aren’t Rudy, Mitt, Johnny M., or even Fred T.

These guys are all trying to appeal to the moderate left. The leftist candidates won’t appeal to the moderate left when their tax increases are exposed. I’m just saying that appealing to the moderate left (like Rudy is definitely) is the wrong play. The moderate left won’t vote for tax hikes.

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Since we have historically emphasized all presidential candidates middle names, such as George W, John Fitz Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Rodham, Franklin delano…then why is media refusing to address Barack Hussein with same respect…geeez.

malkinmania on August 1, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Damn Warmongers.

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 1, 2007 at 1:12 PM

I think that Obama must have gotten a real security briefing and now maybe realizes what we are up against and he is scared sh*tless.

cjs1943 on August 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Obama talked about sending two brigades into Afghan, so if anyone ever has the opportunity to ask him (or any liberal who loves the idea so much), play around with it.

-You say two brigades is enough, but what do you think about four regiments? Do you honestly think two can do the job of four?

-How bout deployed 8 Battalions? 8 is more than 2…?

-You say two brigades are necessary, I think we should do 2 BCTs. Would you compromise with an RCT?

-Seeing how the VP is such a VIP, why don’t we keep the PC on the QT, because if it leaks to the VC he could end up going MIA and we would all be put on KP

Last one doesn’t really apply, but it’s the thought that counts.

TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Bush should demand to have a congressional vote authorizing US forces to go hot pursuit of Jihadi’s across international borders and of course authorizing air strikes across such borders onto actionable intelligence of terrorist/insurgent camps hideouts instillations.

This would quickly end this BS and if even near successfully could be a major new stick to wave at Iran, Pakistan, Syria.

Nothing else it sure would be fun to watch the back peddling and ummm clarifications.

C-Low on August 1, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Why is it that Hillary voting for the war is more macho than all the posturing that Edwards and Obama do ?

I swear the male democratic candidates for president all make Hillary look like the one with the most testosterone.

William Amos on August 1, 2007 at 1:27 PM

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM

I’m well aware of the constitutional issues in Pakistan. People have been predicting Musharraf’s downfall since 2003 when he agreed to either resign as head of the military or president as the Pakistani constitution demands and then reneged on his promise.

Much like the elected president of Venezuela, he’ll be there till he decides to go or somebody takes him out.

JackStraw on August 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Oh my young padiwans, he’s not going to invade Pakistan. He’s going to launch an overnight strike using some helicopters. And then two helicopters will collide and they will detain a schoolbus. This is the Democrats we’re talking about, remember?

pedestrian on August 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Will Pakistan be invaded after the Dems start Drafting the military? Of course, they want females included. Invade a country the is sort of our ally that has nukes and millions of muslims wanting to kill our Soldiers. Real smart move.

calgrammy on August 1, 2007 at 1:30 PM

So here we have the Barack and Silky Pony “Going Back to School Sale”.

Buy one empty suit, get one free.

Hillary can’t help but looking like the smartest woman in the world, running against front-runners Dumb and Dumber. Give me a break. The female co-hosts on The View look like Einstein next to Obama and Edwards.

Maybe it’s all an act to make her look smart. Whoever does the best job sounding like an idiot on foreign policy, gets her VP slot.

God help us.

fogw on August 1, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Rightwinged, I saw RedEye last night, Godlington put that sissy boy in his place. Arm chair General, and stating the obvious the guy is sitting in N.Y. safe and has never been in harms way.

calgrammy on August 1, 2007 at 1:36 PM

(1)This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages,(2) understand different cultures,(3) and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

1. ok….i’ll pay for that
2. WTF……?????
3. I have ZERO faith in those civilian agencies. Give me the DIA and Pentagon any day. Tell the civilians to stay at Starbucks and watch and learn.

Limerick on August 1, 2007 at 1:40 PM

calgrammy on August 1, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Godlington didn’t stick it to the maxim idiot and the huffpost canuk- he demolished them. I was waiting for Bill to scream out Pwned after the maxim guy couldn’t answer the question.

TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Arm chair General, and stating the obvious the guy is sitting in N.Y. safe and has never been in harms way.

careful, alot of politicians, and not to mention this president, did not serve in the military, he has still got the right to propose a doctrine for the use of force and where it should be employed. i dont think i agree with him, and do agree with most of AllahPundits snark.

zane on August 1, 2007 at 1:41 PM

ooops ignore my last post, i thought the sissy you meant was obama, or edwards…. easy mistake.

zane on August 1, 2007 at 1:42 PM

alot of politicians, and not to mention this president, did not serve in the military

Memo to my Air National Guard buddies: you’re not part of the military.

Got it- thanks zane.

TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Memo to my Air National Guard buddies: you’re not part of the military.

Got it- thanks zane.

TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 1:45 PM

excuse me, that is my mistake

i meant see combat, i didnt mean to insult the Air National Guard, i did by accident for which i am sorry.

zane on August 1, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Sounds good to me. Track down and kill terrorists wherever they may roam and to heck with the consequences. So we offend a few billion people or tick off a few world leaders, who cares? I mean, its not like they could really do anything about it anyway, right?

So sayeth the wanna-be leader of the sole remaining hyper-power in the world.

(Its almost like giving a pyromaniacal kid, matches and lighter fluid to play with!)

Ack!

Fatal on August 1, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Gee Zane, tell that to all the National Guardsmen and women who have been rotating in and out of the mideast. It never ceases to amaze me how the dimocraps all were horrified that while in the Guard W didn’t get to Viet Nam so he has no business sending anyone anywhere but had no problem with cigar boy who “loathed the military” sending anyone anywhere. You people really need to get your stories straight. BTW Obmama didn’t serve either so if he becomes our savior in ’08 will you still question his ability to make any military decisions. I didn’t think so.

Catie96706 on August 1, 2007 at 1:53 PM

zane on August 1, 2007 at 1:49 PM

No harm, no foul.

TheEJS on August 1, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Something tells me that this weekend at YearlyKos, Obama will be dropping some lefty good stuff to distract from his warmongering chimpymcbu*hitler doctrine of pre-emptive invasion plans for Pakistan. The knives are starting to come out over at DU, at least from the supporters of the other candidates.

rw on August 1, 2007 at 1:56 PM

For one thing, hearing a liberal say “I’m gonna fight” is a bit like me saying “I’m gonna snap-roll the space shuttle.”

james hooker on August 1, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Put a cigarette in the tough guy’s mouth.

(He is a closet smoker)

Valiant on August 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Oh…this is some beautiful stuff, homes. Despite AP’s providing the benefit of a billion doubts, Obama’s so far out of his league it’s funny, and one can only imagine that this is the product of a 21% poll deficit to HerOwnSelf.

Let’s pull our troops precipitously out of Iraq, and redeploy them to Pakistan — if Musharraf doesn’t have the juevos to do it right. Gotta love the tough talk from a south side Chicago social worker and anti-war liberal…

Jaibones on August 1, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Hey, JayHaw, you see Allah’s link to Silky going all nuclear on the insurance agents and health care administrators of America? Great stuff. And you wanted to shut him up…

Jaibones on August 1, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Barak is just trying to get ahead of the curve before everyone else piles on the victory wagon in Iraq…fevah.

Of course, irresponsible statements by a Pres. candidate be damned, full speed ahead, fire the cruise missiles.

He was for the war after he was against it.

Speakup on August 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Heaven help us.

Labamigo on August 1, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Hey, JayHaw, you see Allah’s link to Silky going all nuclear on the insurance agents and health care administrators of America? Great stuff. And you wanted to shut him up…

Jaibones on August 1, 2007 at 2:51 PM

That’s his bread and butter. He’s been chasing ambulances and suing doctors all his life. How do you think he got the money to buy that mansion he built next to my little tiny (but nice) paid for by insurance company money house.

Insurance companies are a problem, but so are health care providers who would charge 50 bucks per aspirin if it weren’t for insurance company negotiations. Non-profit insurance is the way to go for the system. Insurance keeps doctor prices in check, but insurance companies shouldn’t be scraping any more profit off of the top other than admin fees. Guess who says this? Kucinich of all people – but he’s right on non-profit insurers.

ThackerAgency on August 1, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I think it shows how weak is the understanding of terrorism, WMD and nuclear issues in particular on the Left.

If Obama doesn’t think twice about invading a nuclear sovereign nation state, doesn’t even mention the WMD angle, can he possibly understand the
profound regional impact of a nuclearized Iran?

If a U.S. invasion sparked a coup or uprising, an Islamist faction could take over Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities.

Anil Petra on August 1, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Amazing, how you pull one little thread on his woven message, and it unravels.

right2bright on August 1, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Amazing, looks like Obama has finally fallen into Rove’s pocket. Welcome to the oil conspiracy, my friend. Pakistan is just a hop, skip, and an invasion away from Iran. Tally ho!

NeoConNews on August 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Ann Coulter Syndrome.

Proving once and for all just how dangerous and communicable that ACS truly is.

My collie says:

CC, you are going to catch h*ll for THAT remark.

CyberCipher on August 1, 2007 at 3:34 PM

I can’t even look at this as a “Obama’s a dunce when it comes to foreign policy by making statements like this” situation. It doesn’t even get that far with me.

I’m stuck at the step before that, which is absolute puzzlement at the presumption that Obama (or any Democrat, really, but ESPECIALLY him) will do anything to aggresively prosecute the war on terror.

I have only firm belief on THAT particular issue, and that’s if a Democrat wins the White House in 08, look for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and an isolationist policy as far as fighting the war on terror so vast it’d make Ron Paul squeal with glee.

(Of course, Dems would have no problem sending American troops to fight in Sudan – I guess the genocide of those brown people is more important than the genocide of those OTHER brown people that would result if we left Iraq too soon; or so Harry Reid would have us believe.)

Vyce on August 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Sh!t for brains!!! This man is dangerous. Does any one really believe that he will become Hillary’s choice for V.P.?

Winebabe on August 1, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Hmm, although I don’t at all buy this position from Obama (I fear him more than any other Democrat candidate), alot of these posts smell of partisanship. If Rudy talked about the need to root out the Al Qaeda/terrorist hotbed in Pakistan and other places, would you really respond the way you did? Again I don’t buy this from Obama, but any signs of being hawkish positions from any Democrat are very, very welcoming to me.

Patriot33 on August 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Obama’s policy is unintelligable.

aengus on August 1, 2007 at 4:54 PM

wait I thought the WOT was a bumperstiock slogan ?

I hope john Edwards sets Osama straight.

William Amos on August 1, 2007 at 4:59 PM

BTW kudos for Hillary’s team they tricked Obama into taking a stance.

Hillary sees Obama as the main threat. She needed to have him take a strong positon.

Obama was spliting the anti war vote with Edwards. Her team forced Obama to appear tougher and that turns off the anti war croud. It means more will head towards edwards

It also further highlights Obama’s inexperience. When faced with a backlash about this watch Obama flip flop. And that is the next thing Hillary wants

William Amos on August 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM

I’ve spoken to a couple of people that so far are supporting Obama. Their reason. He looks good. Seems like a good change. Nothing about policy. This won’t help in their Dim heads. I’m certainly not impressed, but then again I’m not the one he needs to impress.

PowWow on August 1, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Of course, he is not sincere. He is trying to position himself to the right of Hillary, just as Hillary is trying to position herself to the right of the GOP.

As far as the idea of invading Pakistan goes, we should have invaded Pakistan a lot sooner. At least they have weapons of mass destruction that sooner or later will fall into the hands of the Taliban. We also needed to invade Iran, because they will soon have WMD. In fact, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and taken all their damn oil to have ended the unending funding of the global jihad once and for all. But we invaded none of those countries, alas, and instead invaded a country with a secular leader with no WMDs.

We either invade, destroy, and convert the islamic world, Ann Coulter’s idea, or we turn ourselves into Fortress America, Ron Paul’s idea. Personally, either one suits me. But doing neither, and playing diplomocop, has never worked and it has gotten us to where we are today.

jihadwatcher on August 1, 2007 at 5:19 PM

“Tough. Smart.”

Hey, let’s invade Pakistan

… and Whimsical to boot!

Lawrence on August 1, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Unfortunately,the Republicans are silent and getting too skittish to respond to anything. For instance this Obama Hussein comment on invading pakistan. This should be hammered until the cows (or Rosie) comes home. But this blurb will be forgotten, just as the Kos crew wants.Go ahead..look at your nearest anti war Democrat, ask them about the Pakistan invasion. They have developed a way of not answering.
So basically we have Hillary, who voted for the war and refused to retract the decision…and Osama Borat who is willing to blast thru Pakistan probably while Iran festers.
Wheres the outrage from the whack left or even middle left. We need a Perot in there to sponge their votes up. I wish Kucinich would run as Independent.

malkinmania on August 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM

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, ‘out of Iraq and into Pakistan’?

This damn fool is all over the place now.

There goes the “fascist vote”.

doingwhatican on August 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM

This idiot is upset about Bush invading Iraq, wants to pull out the troops. And then invade a country of 170 million, half of whom are crazy-assed jihadists, with a leader who is kind of a friend and partener in the WOT. And who is teetering on the brink of being overthrown by those same crazy-assed jihadists which will then control a military of 3.9 million and nukes.

Sounds like a great plan. Sign me up!!!!

conservnut on August 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM

The audacity of ignorance.

csdeven on August 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM

So they want to pull out of the fight we’re in (Iraq) and start a new one? I’m confused.

Anyway, it’s Waziristan not Pakistan. And most of the HVTs (high value targers) are holed up there. They’ll have to be neutralized eventually, but this isn’t an op you can throw together which a couple of A-Teams and a couple of Jeff Emanuels calling in air support.

The problem is it’s impossible to separate the bad guys from the civilian tribes, so I think the only way we can do this is to roll completely asymmetrical. Make connections, run agents, form an intel network, and use that network to locate, ID, and neutralize MVTs via surgical airstrike or paid assassination.

As for HVTs, we need to bag and tag those dudes. Too valuable as intelligence assets, they’ll know what the AQ assault plans are for the homeland. Plus, you kill an HVT, there’s a dozen MVTs who are ready to fill his shoes.

Need to kill the middle value targets to effectively destroy Al-Qai’ada as a functioning terrorist organization.

John from OPFOR on August 1, 2007 at 7:06 PM

two edits: high value targets, and “isn’t an op you can throw together with…”

John from OPFOR on August 1, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Warmonger! Babykiller! Make Love Not War! Give Peace A Chance! No Blood For Oil! Israel will benefit; what a shock!

hadsil on August 1, 2007 at 7:38 PM

In a rational world, Obama would have just lost the primary, as he drove out the entire “Bushes’ endless terror war against innocent terrorists all over the world like a plague of locusts” crowd.

But the world we’re talking about isn’t rational.

Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 7:57 PM

But the world we’re talking about isn’t rational.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Question of the thread:
Is “Loony left logic” an alliteration or an oxymoron?

TunaTalon on August 1, 2007 at 8:16 PM

So instead of ramping up abortion and the Dems trying to out do each other over killing children, this time it’s who is the best conquerer? O’buma wants to invade a Pakistan and Hillary wants to invade where? Can’t wait to hear where Biden is going to send the troops.

Hening on August 1, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Guess he just lost the KOS vote. Hell even some Ron Paul supporters will cross off his name as there 2nd favorite candidate.

TheSitRep on August 1, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Can’t wait to hear where Biden is going to send the troops.

Hening on August 1, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Well from his youtube response about the gun owner I would imagine he would be sending them to be mentally evaluated.

Mojack420 on August 1, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2