For those of you that are pissed at Hillary's comments about Iran ~ let's talk about Obama shall we?

[jillan]

Is it okay that Obama's comments in 8/07 caused riots
in the streets of Pakistan???

Pakistan - an unstable country that has nukes ready to go???
Pakistan - a country that is a home to Al Qaeda?
Pakistan - a sovereign nation, screwed up as it is - it is our ally.



Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)

You will notice that Obama, in his comments, was not calling for an international coalition or increased assistance to the Pakistani government, but for a military invasion of a sovereign nation...an unstable sovereign nation with nukes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan: Obama remark 'irresponsible'

Obama triggered anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror, when he said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order U.S. military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm

------------------------
Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech

Share August 07, 2007 10:03 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: For the second presidential debate in a row, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., came under fire for an Aug. 1 speech in which he said he would go after high-value Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country's president was not willing to act.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html

----------------

Obama: Calls for Unilateral War Against Pakistan

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/1/9376/15707

---------------------------------


Could it be possible that BOTH candidates need to STFU when discussing foreign affairs, and leave their decisions up to their Sec'y of State and other people that know what they are talking about?

[here_is_to_hope]

1. A "strike' against terrorists encampments is not

an invasion nor is it obliteration...

[sandnsea]

14. I am so sick of that lie being told

Obama never said he'd invade. People who have otherwise pretended to give a shit about peace in the world turn around and say crap like that with no regard to the truth or the consequences.

[rodeodance]

20. Your broadbrushing of the context makes you look FOOLISH.

[rodeodance]

21. REC

[Mags]

32. rec

[Clintonista2]

37. rec

[Tellurian]

38. rec

[Texas Hill Country]

47. rec

[here_is_to_hope]

26. Thats a compliment from you...n/t

[Unbowed]

43. Exactly. It wasn't even close to being the same. Clinton's statements were over the top.

Obama simply said he'd do exactly what was done shortly after he made his statement. Our country made a strike at terrorists inside Pakistan.

A bunch of angry Pakistanis is no more an "international incident" than the handful of Clinton supporters picketing the DNC in the guise of disgruntled Florida voters.

Clinton's remarks gave Iran a cause to protest to the United Nations.

To even try to equate the two statements is more than a stretch; it's desperate.

[roguevalley]

54. agreed. what a sad thing this digging for something to cancel out the

truly appalling remarks of their girl. She would bomb babies without a blink of the eye. nothing will undo that.

[ronnykmarshall]

2. Stop that!

Stop that right now!! Don't you DARE question Him!!!!

You should be ASHAMED!!!!


Bad pirhana fish, bad!

[TheDudeAbides]

13. Remember Tavis Smiley! n/t

[niyad]

3. then there is the segment of "democracy now" with jeremy scahill

February 28, 2008
Blackwaterweb4
Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come

Jeremy Scahill reports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will not “rule out” using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years.
. . . . .

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric

not surprisingly, the peter barack obama supporters on these boards had no comment about this.

[jillan]

7. Wow - how did I miss that one?

:puke:

[rodeodance]

39. wrong. see her major foriegn policy speech on.......

st pats day....i believe it was day.


NO blackwater and marines will guard the embassby.

she has submitted her Irag withdrawal plan to the Pentagon officials to make sure it would safely withdraw the troops. It does.

[jillan]

53. psssst -

I think s/he was referring to Obama, not Hillary.

[gateley]

4. Well they might both want to back off a bit now, but

I don't think they should leave their decisions up to our Secretary of State! That's essentially leaving their decisions up to Cheney.

I DO think they should leave it up to the "other people" -- the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for example. :7

[jillan]

5. Well - I was thinking -----

that maybe he would be SoS when I wrote that....

and you saw right thru me :)

[LSparkle]

6. Did Pakistan launch a complaint at the U.N. over Obama's remarks?

I'd say HRC's words stirred up FAR more than just flag-burning in
Tehran.

[jillan]

16. Piss off Pakistan or piss of Iran? hmmmmmm --------------->

Since Iran does not have nukes and ....
Pakistan is already to go....

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads, and Carnegie reports that they have produced 585-800 kg of HEU, enough for 30-55 weapons. Pakistan's nuclear warheads are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium and requires an estimated 15-20 kg of material per warhead. According to Carnegie, Pakistan has also produced a small but unknown quantity of weapons grade plutonium, which is sufficient for an estimated 3-5 nuclear weapons.


Hmmm - so which country should we piss off first?

My answer: NEITHER!

[Tribetime]

8. I'm upset with the Iraq War vote, That's my #1 issue still

[Avalux]

9. What about the word "OBLITERATE" do you not understand?

Scary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. I'm pissed at both comments. But, Hillary's adolescent "tough guy" posturing is dangerous.

[jillan]

30. They are both dangerous,

None of the other candidates would have made either of these comments.
But unfortunately these are the candidates that are left.

[Vinca]

11. Does that mean you don't care about getting the mastermind

of the 9/11 attacks? Of course Obama would take him out if he learned he was in a cave in Pakistan. Big difference between a missile strike at a single target and "obliteration."

[sandnsea]

12. Hillary is the one who lied about what Obama said

SHE is the one that caused that problem, not Obama. He never said he'd invade, SHE said that's what he said. That's how little your damn princess cares about the lives of the people around the world. It's all politics, all the time, and it's all about her her her.

[Quixote1818]

15. There is a HUGE difference between what you posted and the word OBLITERATE

Give me a fucking break.

[jillan]

17. What part of threatening an unstable ally with nukes don't you understand?

[rodeodance]

24. and only idiots take the word out of context --or those who do Smears --either way, they are FOOLISH

[here_is_to_hope]

28. My friend, it is you who are equating a tactical strike with

"invasion" and Hillary turning Iran into glass.

Eeeesh.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Pfft. Clinton wins. She's far FAR tougher than Obama. She's the toughest thing since Bronson....

... She's so tough, she'll obliterate 70 million men, women, and children.

She's so tough she should never be in a position with power over people's lives.

Boy did she convince me how tough she was. I'll never question it again.

[Bucky]

19. "Obama: Calls for Unilateral War Against Pakistan" :o) Might be a little over the top

As anyone who watched the debate knows, Obama was talking about killing bin Laden if we had reliable intel on where he was. First everyone on stage mimicked Clinton chastising Obama for endangering Mussharef (who, it turns out, didn't need our help getting his countrymen pissed off at him). Then all the Bush politicos mimicked Clinton saying how naive and inexperienced this statement showed Obama was.

And then finally reporters got around to asking military and intelligence experts--and pretty much all of them said Obama was right (oops-nearly typed "wright" there). Within a month everyone involved had quietly acknowledged that Obama's point was perfectly correct. There is no excuse at all for passing up a decent chance of killing al-Qaeda's moneybag and figurehead.

[Lady-Damai]

34. Hillary doesn't need to listen to experts.

:popcorn:

[graycem]

22. Yes we shall...

A strike against terrorist targets is a far FAR cry from obliterating a nation with nuclear weapons. Quite the comparison you've made.

[jillan]

25. Iran does not even have nuclear weapons - yet.

[graycem]

33. Exactly..

so why say obliterate them. Why not say I would rather NOT operate on the assumption of that because as long as I'm president, I will PREVENT them from obtaining nuclear weapons. It's not what she said, it's HOW she said it. Not very presidential in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. But whatever. Keep trying to make that false equation. It's irrelevant anyway, since she won't be president. :)

[jillan]

49. Neither one was presidential in their tough talk.

[anigbrowl]

23. Same old lies. Actually, this is the issue that made me decide to vote for Obama

After seeing how other politicians jumped on and distorted what he said, while throwing sanctimonious shit-fits - Republicans complaining about the IDEA of invading a sovereign country (unless it's Iraq) - I knew that he had done something right. When I saw Bush wheeling out Musharraf, a certifiable asshole, I realized that Obama was the one setting the agenda. After that I knew who I was for.

As for Obama not knowing what he was talking about, I guess that you, like so many others, failed to notice that his first degree was in International Relations. Obama knows way better than most what he is talking about.

[jillan]

29. Having another President start bombing without trying diplomacy first?

Like I said in my OP, they BOTH need to shut up.

[anigbrowl]

46. A little truth goes a long way

"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.

"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

I urge you to read (or listen to) his entire speech on the subject.

[jillan]

51. He shouldn't have said it.

Hopefully we would go after the taliban.
But you don't announce it to the world. You don't publicly threaten an ally.

Hillary shouldn't have said what she said either.

They were both wrong.

[anigbrowl]

52. Yes he should; and he didn't threaten an ally.

He put a demagogue on notice that we would not allow him to keep playing both ends for his own advantage. Musharraf is a cynical power-hungry strategist who suspended the judiciary and free press in his country in an attempt to win an election, and whose intelligence service is riddled with corruption, more of a help to Al Qaeda than to us in many respects. Obama never spoke of ignoring diplomatic considerations or toppling the Pakistani government; he spoke extensively in that same speech about what his diplomatic and aid policies would be, with numbers, conditions, strategic and intelligence policy.

I decided to support him after this speech because while I want a president who knows how to speak softly, but also one who is willing to carry a big stick. The fact that you have to keep distorting what he said indicates that you don't have an argument.

[crimsonblue]

27. Ummm...

it's too bad the CIA used pinpoint attacks in tribal Pakistan to kill terrorists. Plus, Obama did not reiterate his bloodlust for causing Iran to be obliterated. Plus, he helped bring Peace to Nigeria.

[loveable liberal]

31. The Royal House of Clinton and Bush

Im concerned that if Hillary is elected who will the next clinton be to rule over all the land? I'm sure Chelsea is capable but isnt she a bit young? I certainly dont want the Bush twins running the country. It seems the royal family's have not born a son and Roger and Jeb families are simply out of the question.

[question everything]

35. Does not matter. Obama can do no wrong

and Hillary can do nothing right on these pages.

Facts and reality do not matter.

Has anyone asked whether Obama is now going to "disown" his grandma?

[jillan]

42. Lucky for Obama, he made these comments in August when not many people were paying attention.

But I was ;)

[anigbrowl]

48. Lucky for Obama, I was paying attention too.

Personally I still want to see bin Laden brought to justice.

[JBoy]

36. Two points:

1. A strike against a terrorist target is not the same as an "invasion", or god forbid a Hillary-style obliterating retaliation.

2. A decision on a military strike should be made by the President, not their Secretary of State.

[jillan]

41. Both candidates were wrong in their comments.

About the Sec of State - what I was referring to was that I would hope either one would get advice from other people before they did something stupid.

[mopinko]

40. 2 words- black bag

phony baloney "riots"
wake up.

[ronnykmarshall]

44. Prada???

[mopinko]

50. no, this kind

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84652?userlanguage=ga&save_prefs=true

or this


http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/02/index.html

stuff like that.
i could dig around for some bloodier ones, if you still don't get it.

[Brundle_Fly]

45. 6 Recs

Same shitty Recc'ers