Comments on: Video: Obama’s line on Pakistan turns from insane to dishonest

By: 2e4de73fc674

2e4de73fc674 — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:17:55 +0000

2e4de73fc674…

2e4de73fc674db76ed64…

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: John Edwards slips that he may not have talked to Musharraf after Bhutto’s assassination

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:58:29 +0000

[...] with Musharraf broke on an Iowa radio station on December 27. There was a great deal of head-scratching here and elsewhere when Edwards first started hinting that he’d spoken to Musharraf shortly [...]

By: dedalus

dedalus — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:17:09 +0000

Jaibones on January 1, 2008 at 1:26 AM

I’m less concerned about what Paul would say on principle about the two wars than what the CIA, Pentagon, or military personal have said about the logistics of opening the second front.

Paul would probably argue that we have no business being in Iraq, and the way we went about it was unconstitutional. I don’t take that position. I think Iraq was a strategic error and it took resources away from Afghanistan and Waziristan.

By: drjohn

drjohn — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:31:44 +0000

I knew it.

I knew Hitlary was responsible for Bhutto’s death.

First it’s Vince Foster, now Bhutto.

By: Huffturd Being Hufftarded | UPDATE: HotAir’s Got Video! « Dj Konservo

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 07:11:38 +0000

[...] HotAir has video of Obama’s weasel words! [...]

By: Jaibones

Jaibones — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:26:09 +0000

dedalus on December 31, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Actually, I was referring to the very moonbat notion that we sacrificed the effort in Afghanistan to go to Iraq, which would seem to be untrue.

By: jdsmith0021

jdsmith0021 — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:03:25 +0000

once again, The Oprah’s main man opens his mouth and inserts both feet.

Why does anyone take him seriuos at all? Ron Paul sounds lucid when compared.

By: Frank Nitti

Frank Nitti — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:47:30 +0000

Obama has gained in the polls by keeping his mouth shut. When he opens it it’s just to change feet. The guy is a lightweight, plain and simple, on every issue. The sad thing is that he’s still a better choice than Hillary or the Silk Pony.

By: RightWingGeek.com

RightWingGeek.com — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:55:29 +0000

Hot Air – Video: Obama’s line on Pakistan turns from insane to dishonest…

Appearing on Meet the Press Sunday, Barack Obama tried to undo the spin that his campaign trotted out in response to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Host Tim Russert cited a Washington Post editorial that accused Obama of committing “an ugly fou…

By: oakpack

oakpack — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:04:49 +0000

I see Obama is catching on to the Clintonian, opportunistic, turn a blind eye way of campaigning. He sends a pawn out to spout off, them fires him. When confronted with it, he just denies knowledge, shows everyone his disdain by firing the pawn, then of course plays both sides to his advantage.

By: Larraby

Larraby — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:48:32 +0000

The Obama remark shows how dangerous it would be to elect any of these lightweights. Obama is a McGovern Democrat and would never use force to protect American interests anywhere. He would not have the respect of the troops and after he orders the troops home from Iraq, America would not credibility. He thinks a unilateral apology from America would be the best way to conduct foreign policy. Hillary Clinton’s policies are well known. She would bring back the entire Bill Clinton team, Maddie Albright, Jamie (Mr. Christine Amanpour) Rubin, Warren (”may I apologize to you, President Assad, on behalf of the United States?”) Christopher and last but not least Janet Reno. Recall that after the first WTC attacks, Reno said that we would “file indictments if we know precisely who committed this crime”. With the Reno doctrine, which said terrorism is to be treated as a law enforcement matter and as nothing else, the US was already defeated. Ben Laden took Clinton’s measure and sensed Bill’s inherent weakness. 9/11/ 2001 was all but inevitable. As for Edwards, foreign policy does not interest him, although he is observing Hugo Chavez’s rhetoric about private businesses in Venezuela and adopting that rhetoric. Edwards would probably like to see the Chavez economic policies adopted here although Hugo may be too conservative for Edwards. All of these lightweights are dangerous to the security of the USA. Sadly, Hillary is by now all but assured of being the next president.

By: CrimsonFisted

CrimsonFisted — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:40:41 +0000

More: A great book on the subject, tangentially, of Pakistan’s exporting of jihad far and wide is Youssef Bodansky’s Chechen Jihad. I’m reading it now and it’s nightmarish.

I would like a book review from you, in that case, interested to hear your comments.

By: BL@KBIRD

BL@KBIRD — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:32:08 +0000

This is your ar$e, this is your elbow.

By: Confederate Yankee

Confederate Yankee — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:05:32 +0000

Bhutto Assassination Weapon ID’d?…

On December 27, Pakistani police recovered a pistol from the scene of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. I tweaked the low-res version in PhotoShop, rotated it 90 degrees, and played with the color balance to provide better contra…

By: MadisonConservative

MadisonConservative — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:05:01 +0000

That screencap is chilling…

By: saint kansas

saint kansas — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:57:02 +0000

It doesn’t matter, he’s going to lose anyway.

Is it just me, or are most of his enthusiastic supporters around 16 years old and too young to vote anyway? He seems to have the high-school girl demo locked up.

By: Griz

Griz — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:29:56 +0000

I’m not completely sure I’ve ever heard a truthful statement from the man. O’BamBam is an expert liar as well as a denier and twister of historical facts. We’ll pray he gets the nomination.

By: ThackerAgency

ThackerAgency — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:26:17 +0000

It doesn’t matter, he’s going to lose anyway. Hillary is going to win the D nomination. He’s just media fodder to make better ratings off of it. Elections are boondoggles for the MSM. . . but only if it’s close.

By: dedalus

dedalus — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:22:32 +0000

how very RonPaulian of you to suggest.

To suggest that we should have had a more sustained military effort in Afghanistan and possible incursions into Waziristan w/o a declaration of war? Not very Paulian.

I’m not eager to spread democracy but am eager to use military and intelligence assets to improve national security.

By: Chap

Chap — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:16:54 +0000

How about security before democracy? I don’t think we care if they’re unstable as Jello as long as they can build towards democracy eventually, and those nukes are under some form of trusted control.

By: Jaibones

Jaibones — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:15:24 +0000

dedalus,

how very RonPaulian of you to suggest.

By: fogw

fogw — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:15:08 +0000

Obama doesn’t differ much from the other Dem candidates; full of platitudes, lack of experience, completely void of common sense when it comes to our nation’s security.

They all come from the same cookie cutter.

By: Outlander

Outlander — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:12:16 +0000

dedalus – don’t be silly. The Palestinians did a great job with democracy before stability. The Hamas government is proof positive that democracy produces great results in unstable Islamic regimes… Right? :-)

By: infidel

infidel — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:11:30 +0000

Blames in hindsight, yet offers no viable solutions. A true Democratic politician.

By: dedalus

dedalus — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:05:55 +0000

Pakistan requires stability before more democracy, and Obama is wrong to suggest otherwise. However, the dedication of military resources in Iraq has strained the military globally, and specifically in Afghanistan. Don’t know that a greater U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would have a tremendous effect on Waziristan or Pakistan, though.