Protesting Obama's stance on terrorists in Pakistan

What type off short term memory does the right possess? Do you remember this?
NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

Then you think Pakistan is such a good ally that this comes out from the very leader of this "ally" country:
PRAGUE, September 22, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has accused Washington of threatening to bomb his country "back to the Stone Age" after the terrorist attacks of September 2001 unless Islamabad cooperated fully with the U.S. campaign against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Musharraf made the remarks on an American news program just hours before today's talks at the White House with U.S. President George W. Bush.

Is our "ally" not telling the truth? It's funny what makes strange bedfellows in this administration. Before sept 11th...they were basically called a rogue state by this administration.

I see Little Johnny D'Jihad is out protesting again.

It's nice to see the little Wingnuts are still busy spinning what Obama actually said.
Obama said that if he had "SPECIFIC" intelligence of the whereabouts of Osama Bin Forgotten being somewhere in Pakistan he would go after him, NOT that he would invade Pakistan, you idiotic Wingnuts.

I remember when the Republican Draftdodger in Chief said that Osama Bin Forgotten was wanted "Dead or Alive"....this was before Little Dick Cheney reminded him that this would upset their rich Saudi oil buddies because Osama Bin Forgotten is a Saudi.

But he dodged a question at Camp David about the U.S. acting on that intelligence without the cooperation of the Pakistani government.

He didn't dodge that question before....He back pedals and the sheeple follow suit.

"PEACEFULL PROTEST"

IT'S OKAY, IT'S ALRIGHT, THE PAKISTANIAN GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO FIGHT TERRORISM. THEY WILL NEVER CAPTURE OR HELP CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADEN.

TOO MUCH RELIEF MONEY ON THE TABLE TO END ANY TYPE OF CONFLICT.

IT WAS HEALTHY FOR PAKISTAN TO HEAR THE VOICE OF A TRUE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THEY HAVE NUKES AND THEY ARE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT. THEY ARE PISSED OFF PAKISTANIAN AMERICANS WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THEIR COUNTRY EXCEPT HOPE THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T DO ANYTING TO THEIR COUNTRY.

IT'S OKAY, IT'S ALRIGHT, OBAMA IS READY FOR THE FIGHT.

Obama is not my 1st choice, but kudus to him for stating the obvious. If OBL is in Pakistan, go get him.

Demented Johnnny E., sorry but I am at work today (you know, something you don't do an unemployed middle-aged adult living off of mummy and duddy), so no protesting from me.

By the way, Loony Leftists: If we go into Pakistan, that constitutes an invasion and it wouldn't be legal either, something you folks say you care about.
Funny how you demented souls never address the question of "what then" after our excursion into Pakistan.
Anyway, if Bush did this or said something like this, you demented souls would be all over his cowboy warmongering behind!

Let us address the issue of how Bin Laden has gotten on the backburner. I hear all the time from the right about how the terrorists use the media to get the optimum exsposure with anything they do. Well...it works..so what is wrong with sending that message to them by following through with our threats and eliminate Bin Laden?

Mark why aren't my comments not going through...??

"Obama said that if he had "SPECIFIC" intelligence of the whereabouts of Osama Bin Forgotten being somewhere in Pakistan he would go after him, NOT that he would invade Pakistan"

Yes and Pakistan had said that if the US has specific intelligence TO HAND IT OVER TO THEM.

So Obama said he would act on them...ACT on them..Want to be more specific..BC no matter how he acts on them Pakistan will consider that a HOSTILE ACT; if he is irrelevant to them while acting out on them which is what he implied. Unless you want Pakistan to fall out of the little favor that we have with them...

and they ARE cooperating..Obama mad it seem like they are not in the area that are most likely to be...

8/7/07
MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces, backed by helicopter gunships, attacked two militant hideouts near the border with Afghanistan on Tuesday, killing at least 10 militants, the military said....North Waziristan is regarded as a hotbed of support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, and an army offensive has been anticipated there since militants last month abandoned a 10-month old peace pact struck with the government....U.S. officials have said they expect Pakistan to strike at select targets in the region, where they say al Qaeda has regrouped and is planning for operations elsewhere in the world."

Oh and Mark what is up with the spam box..I don't think I remember that being there..R U guys having a problem with spam??

THIS TIME I WANT A SMART PRESIDENT!

...and Barack Obama IS my first choice. I trust him to say what he means and mean what he says.

I don't trust the media to report it correctly for one moment. MSM is always trying to make a pig farm out of a ham sandwich.

Barack...we got your back...SWING WIDE!

Demented Johnnny E., sorry but I am at work today (you know, something you don't do an unemployed middle-aged adult living off of mummy and duddy), so no protesting from me.

Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 3:29 PM

Little Johnny Castanza,
Are you going to provide some links to back up this claim or are you just going to continue along taking your marching orders from Rush Limpdong while providing us with ZERO proof?

Funny how you demented souls never address the question of "what then" after our excursion into Pakistan.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 3:29 PM

Like your well managed war in Iraq? By the way John, had we gone after Bin Laden "before" this ill planned invasion of Iraq, there wouldn't have been a problem. The world supported us before your stupid war. This administration has been the most inept bunch of clowns this country has known. You're just one of the 26%ers that are blind and are easily led. Tell me again why Bin Laden roaming free is OK?

Hey Wingnuts:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiganatoo/821441317/

"...and an army offensive has been anticipated there since militants last month abandoned a 10-month old peace pact struck with the government...."

Posted by: AR | August 7, 2007 3:34 PM

Imagine that Republicans. Rather than put pressure on Musharraf to get the murderers, you want him to play nice so he doesn't upset tribal leader's feelings and this is what you get. Militants breaking promises. Continuing to train and plan jihad, and al-Qaeda leaders continue to move about having sleep overs and dinner parties.

Oh give me a break. Didn’t Dubya say himself say “those who fed them, those who house them, those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action.” Terrorists and most likely OBL are in Pakistan. Remind me again who master-mined the attack on 9/11? OBL or Saddam? Obama just has the guts and sense to actually figure out the facts and defend the US and our true enemies and not live in a world of make-believe weapons of mass distortion.

John D and the other Republic Swampsters are actually being intellectually honest for once, in their protest of invading Pakistan because it may damage their President politically. After all, we remember they were the loudest critics when Israel invaded Lebanon to go after terrorist kidnappers don't we?

oh please Obama is correct!
anything to get these people in a uproar
get a job!

Terr'r'rists your games are through,

Because now you have to answer to:

America, f yeah, coming again to save the mother-f-ing day yeah!

America, f yeah, Freedom is the only way yeah!

I would hope Bush and any president following him would not hesitate to take out bin Laden, wherever he shows his face. However, I agree with Sen. Biden on this one. If you were going to violate Pakistan's sovereignty by striking on their soil without permission, you would just do it. You wouldn't advertise it beforehand and make it an even bigger incident. That is why Bush was non-committal in his response.

Another problem is what constitutes "actionable intelligence". We had actionable intelligence that Iraq had WMDs. Obama can live in a fantasy world where intelligence is black and white, and he can answer a hypothetical question about what he would do if bin Laden was definitely in a certain place at a certain time. That is not reality. Intelligence about bin Laden would likely be from a spy or Al Qaeda defector, whose credibility and motives will be in question. With a less than concrete claim re the whereabouts of bin Laden, is it worth gambling and violating the sovereignty of an admittedly less than ideal ally? That's a tough question, it would depend on the circumstances, and it would be the call of the POTUS - a decision I would not envy.

Don’t get me wrong. If Obama were the POTUS and carried out a strike like this, I would support him. I just hope this is not campaign rhetoric, and that he actually appreciates the nuances of the situation, only a few of which I mentioned out above.

What people routinely forget is that there is a PROCESS to deal with things and if you can get to a point where you CAN sign peace talks with the enemy to bring them into the process you should.. It is a step that Pakistan wanted to take if it was viable (benefit of the doubt) after Bush pressured them to do something about that region and high end operatives we THINK there is a high likelihood are there; without pin point intelligence apparently that the Pakistan gov said if we have we should had over (since we haven't I'm sure Pakistan will not commit to anything from our side). Pakistan might not see the situation like the US. Pakistan might see that peace talks would able it to kill two birds with one stone bc it has its own NATIONAL interests at stake.

Peace talks tho bring in enemy's are used it not new; bc state tend to think it will benefit everyone more.(than let us say not taking that option blowing them off the map or a crack down that will get our problem solved but exacerbate their problem bc some factions will target civilians as a result of that crack down with runs into the fact of a fragil leadership; his own interests) The Sudanses gov routinely makes an invite to the problem creating fragmented groups (rebel forces) in the Sudan to peace or resolution talks with the foreign and African countries involved. They see merit to bring them in to a point that no longer did they require of the one group was willing to join the talks to HAVE to sign a treaty. (Meaning just sit in. Just like the Iraqi gov will have the people who left Maliki gov in the Summit but just not part of the gov.)

Pakistan is its own country that WILL press to do things at its own pace, and at its own discretion. You shouldn't project US need onto another country bc they don't see the situation the same way. Once the peace deals disintegrated obviously the peace talks proved to Pakistan that the groups aren't really willing to conceded. But peace talks did and do give you the opportunity to get to know how the situation stands on the other side; even if they end up breaking off. do give you a chance to calm the society and introdue some normalcy bc the fighting and targeting of civilinas cause civilinas to want you ougth. And military might did not seem like it would bring peace to some regions and their civilians targeted as a result of your crack down on the extremist, that the extremist did not stand for so they fired back. So it isn't a joke. A one sided spin. It layered. Its always evolving. Sometimes what you have is trial and error, and patience to go on. On another note, as a matter of fact you can sign peace treaties in order to keep the person ("enemy") on long enough to get a better sense of operations, or where the whereabout of certain operatives are; maybe even seeing that there is not need to alienate a whole group to get some. Especially since most of the group has more to do with the targeting of civilian groups in YOUR country than those responsible for 9/11.

But going back to Janet. I hope that you can identify the flow of events and not pin them one against another. Tit for tat WILL only continue the dialogue in a direction that DOES NOT acknowledge where things currently stand (not just where they have been), and that is what is important if you plan on being CONSTRUCTIVE and making wise decisions.

OBAMA DECIDED TO OPT FOR HIS COMMENTS IRRELEVANT TO WHERE THINGS STAND, AND IRRELEVAT TO THE COMPLEXITY IN THE SITUATION WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNTRY WORKING ON ITS OWN SELF INTERESTS COMPETING WITH OURS WITH WMD IN PLAY AND WE SHOULD TIP TOE AND NOT STOMP TO WHERE WE ARE GOING JUST BC IT BRING THE BALL AROUND THE COURT. We don't need to go back and forth. We need to go forward.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

I'll just keep posting this till one of the wingnuts tell me how this is different than what Obama said?

"War is not the answer"? That is rich coming from supporters of a country that attacked its neighbor 5 times and lost each time. If Pakistan and its water carriers in the US value its sovereignty so much, then they should stop being host to all these terrorist organizations. And if they can't cleanse themselves, then the rest of the world will have to do it for them. Obama made more sense in one speech than W ever did his whole life!

bin laden is a brother of bush's business partners. how do u expect him to hunt him?

obama tries to uproot the tree by attacking the root. i think it is not just wise but commonsense.

Demented Johnnny E., sorry but I am at work today (you know, something you don't do an unemployed middle-aged adult living off of mummy and duddy), so no protesting from me.

Wasting company time surfing the net when you should be doing your job??? Why did you feel compelled to tell the world this?

Seems I remember saying many months ago, before he decided to run, that I thought it was a bad idea for Obama to run. He was too green. I was hoping that he would take the fire that made me, a Rep. vote for him and establish himself in the Senate. Then he would have been a solid candidate. But no, he bowed to pressure, bowed to "the first African American President" and so on. Now we see what happens when a man like Obama enters the corrupt field of Presidential candidates and is steadily being eaten alive. HE shuld have worked in the Senate through at least two terms. Then, he would have been very difficult to beat.

Looks like Obama is "George W. junior".

"If we go into Pakistan, that constitutes an invasion and it wouldn't be legal either"

thanks dumb johnny d for the above statement.Hmmmmm!isn't invading a soverign country like iraq which had no wmd, no al-qaida, and nothing to do with 9/11 also "illegal". as obama said if we have "specific" intelligence go in and get the terrorist and hopefully obl. but that won't happen with dumb nuts in office

Obama vs. Osama! Could the results be any worse than W vs. Osama? My money is on Obama. With "allies" like Pakistan, who need enemies?

With Obama's Islamic Muslim background I wonder if he has something else in mind.
Please read up on the candidates before you vote next year.

Jethro, sorry, but the right did not protest Israel going into Lebanon to get Hamas terrorists. That was the Left again.

Bill R., we did go after bin laden before the Iraq War and we still are going after him.

With "allies" like Pakistan, who need enemies?

Posted by: C-dog | August 7, 2007 4:58 PM

Spot on C-dog. Before sept 11th..the Bush administration basically was saying Pakistan was a rogue state. Then they tell the leader, "we'll blow you back to stone age", and now...they are a good ally. Like you said...with friends like this..who needs enemas?

People hear what they want to hear.

Obama's job is to remind voters exactly what he said.

Obama's campaign team is doing a bad job of this.

What American would NOT want the president to take action in Pakistan if

1. Actionable intelligence told him that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan

AND

2. Pakistan was unwilling (or unable) to do anything about it.

If Musharraff is so inept or impotent that he cannot root out al Qaeda, then he is worthless. And so being, it is pointless to be concerned about whether Musharraff is overthrown since he would be, for all intents and purposes, powerless/already overthrown.

This is the context of Obama's remarks. Obama's failure to repeat his remarks and intent is the failure of leadership.

As stated by yours truly very early, Obama is too inexperienced to be president. He is proving it in spades at this most crucial juncture of the campaign.

The difference between what Obama said and present policy?

Simple.

Obama doesn't mean it. And when he says it, he can't be taken seriously by other countries. Obama has mortgaged himself to the peacenik crowd. He and his advisors will ALWAYS find a reason not to send troops in to Pakistan. Whether this is correct policy, or incorrect, he's just never going to do it.

For him to pretend otherwise is mere campaign rhetoric, not to be taken seriously.

The comments on this story reveals only one thing that left also have their fair share of whack jobs just like the right who are not guided by principles. when your politics is based on loyalty to one side and not on principles you are not going to ever emerge as a world leader a lesson the american people should have learnt after 8 years on Bush presidency.

people from Pakistan that is now living in America would not dear protest against George Bush or Dick Chaney, but Obama is black so they will.

lets see if the group of Pakistanis will come out when The President comes to Chicago.....lets see if they have the guts

lets see if the group of Pakistanis will come out when The President comes to Chicago.....lets see if they have the guts

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

I'll just keep posting this till one of the wingnuts tell me how this is different than what Obama said?

With Obama's Islamic Muslim background I wonder if he has something else in mind.
Please read up on the candidates before you vote next year.
Posted by: paf | August 7, 2007 5:07 PM

Maybe you should check this link if you're so interested in 'reading up' on candidates. That BS was debunked months ago.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

"The difference between what Obama said and present policy?

Simple.

Obama doesn't mean it. And when he says it, he can't be taken seriously by other countries. Obama has mortgaged himself to the peacenik crowd. He and his advisors will ALWAYS find a reason not to send troops in to Pakistan. Whether this is correct policy, or incorrect, he's just never going to do it.

For him to pretend otherwise is mere campaign rhetoric, not to be taken seriously."

Posted by: Bruce | August 7, 2007 5:20 PM

No, no difference at all Bruce.

This administration, or any of the Republican candidates, won't do it either, because they can't. Due to their complete support to and open ended commitment to the Iraq war, extending for decades, we will not have the troops available to make a significant "surge" of forces to the Afghanistan?Pakistan theater to really go after Al qaeda. They've sold their soul to the war loving "stay the course forever" crowd. It's all mere campaign rhetoric to say otherwise.

"GOOD SHOT SWAMP"

Best dialogue I've seen. Its nice to see the impact of this conversation discussed at length in a public forum.

We want change, but we also want America to be stong as we move on from this "CONDI RICE" AUGMENTATION OF A WAR that we are occupying at this time.

I FEEL YA, I FEEL YA ALL.

lets see if the group of Pakistanis will come out when The President comes to Chicago.....lets see if they have the guts

Posted by: sid | August 7, 2007 5:38 PM

Sid: If Dear Leader ever had the guts to appear before an unscreened public in Chicago, the Pakistanis would certainly not be alone. Problem is that the little boy lacks the courage to meet with his adoring public, so it's not going to happen.

Can any of you deadenders identify the last time when your hero appeared before an unscreened public (not a group of trained seal-like Republicant zombies, and not a military crowd where they're prohibited from free expression).

blinkin...your point is well taken, however, I am not defending GB

Obama doesn't mean it. And when he says it, he can't be taken seriously by other countries. Obama has mortgaged himself to the peacenik crowd. He and his advisors will ALWAYS find a reason not to send troops in to Pakistan. Whether this is correct policy, or incorrect, he's just never going to do it.

For him to pretend otherwise is mere campaign rhetoric, not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Bruce | August 7, 2007 5:20 PM

Bruce Whinerdyce,
Prove it, provide us with some links to back up this claim of yours, I'm guessing that you can't.

We're waiting Brucie.....

Yet nobody is talking about the 123 agreement that we just signed with India. We are starting an Arms Race between Pakistan and India.

Say Goodbye to the NPT: U.S. Begins Nuclear Assistance to India

http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/08/say-goodbye-to-npt-us-begins-nuclear.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

This only proves that the US currently does not have information that would lead it to, and be worthy of any hastened act on Pakistan by the US; given the conditions in Pakistan. Giving credence to acknowledging the situation there and continuing to try all channels before taking action; given the situation and issues surrounding the situation in Pakistan.

Using this bit is misleading too isn’t it. It makes it look as though Obama is right in line with the president. I doubt he is, or wanted to be. Bc given his whole speech the point was to make a tougher stance on Pakistan. And, I am curious to know how Obama will be able to come up with what we don’t have currently enough to over rule tipping that country. Will his tougher stance lead him to define “ally” as he wants or “actionable intelligence” or what he wants to do or will do. Bc then he crosses over to Bushes side.

Reality. The current conditions aren’t dependent on Bush or Obama to define them. They stand their ground on their own. If Obama was too afraid (or political motivated) to acknowledge the situation for what it is afraid to navigate the water of Bush he is wrong. And if a Bush supported will be afraid to acknowledge the future conditions of Pakistan (should they deteriorate; at least we expired all reasonable option; given the situation and issues Pakistan poses) for fear of siding with Obama he is wrong.

The people using and conforming the word “ally” to their likening. The word is relative, but the current state of affairs where it counts is where foreign policy takes its cues from (smartest place to take its cues from). Right now like it or not. Whether Bush says it or someone else channels are being used that qualify Pakistan as an ally; in terms of terrorism. Don’t know about tomorrow, and until it happens the past can’t be used against Pakistan until they have a fall out with the US. Like Obama you are all jumping the gun and equating that with a tougher stance bc you all want to define reality as you political want tit for tat. Back and forth.

Iraq is not Pakistan.

Saddam is not Musaraf.

9/11/2001 is not 8/7/07

You can not use one against the other.

The worst thing to do is to use anything that transpired as a result of one as the stepping stone to our own likening.

newssophisticate I mentioned the treaty in terms of Pakistan but apparently anything out side of the two lines that Obama said aren't relevant, or are being jockeyed back and forth politically (or being trivialized or redefined or dismissed). Thought the treaty prohibits for military use. It leaves out the clause should India use it for military purposes that the agreement is off. And then there is the issue of destabilizing Pakistan in terms of what is currently in the air in terms of the Middle East and the Middle East and Iraq. You drop a stone into a puddle it always will have a rippling effect.

And Pakistan Iraq Afghanistan. Our people and their people will always have differences. But they bleed like we do. They laugh like we do. They cry like we do. They aren't irrational for protesting like we do when they get the impression like we are entitled to when we want to portray a whole country gamma of people based on the relationship civilians have no control of when state actors are involved. A relationship that will affect the country where their loved ones live. There is nothing unreasonable or unwarranted about them.

Since i am of south asian descent i am glad that at least one presidential hopeful knows the geography of the region and not just talking out thier rear end "keep the nuclear option".

Saudi Arabia is the key to fixing this mess.

AR...Maybe it's me, but when you write a post....I have no idea what you're trying to say or what your point is. Don't take offense though..I'm just an old shitkicker from the south. My question was how was what Obama said, any different than what Bush said. I really didn't get any answers so I'll make it easier.....Answer:
1. It isn't different

It isn't different? So if it isn't different than why would Obama a) want to say something to sound redundant? b) to sound like Bush?

The fact is that those are two lines of an entire speech ment to say he will take a tougher stance on Pakistan.

It is implying criticism of Bush. Of Pakistan being an ally. Obamas stance is meant to be tougher than Bush on Pakistan, and he IS over reaching. Given the context that is Pakistan, and given where we currently stand with that country.

AR,
I think what bill r. is trying to say is that Obama would be "smarter" than what W. has been (leave Iraq, find Osama Bin Forgotten) and believe me, it shouldn't be to hard to be "smarter" than what W and Little Dick have been..

John bc Bush has lowered the bar so low it will be that much harder to differentiate between noble ideas and noble and smart ideas; bc it is so easy for anyone to look better compared to Bush.

It isn't different? So if it isn't different than why would Obama a) want to say something to sound redundant? b) to sound like Bush?
Posted by: AR | August 7, 2007 9:42 PM

Because it's c) Do the right thing.

AR...I believe that Obama is making the case that the "real" war on terror is against the terrorists that committed the attacks of 9/11 which were in Afganistan and now hide in Pakistan. This administration would have you believe that every attack or bombing that happens in Iraq is Al-Qaeda. Our own military put this at about 3% of the attacks. Yet somehow they manipulate people to believe this is a war against Al-Qaeda, when in reality, the ones who planned and attacked us are hiding in Pakistan. What I really find funny is how at the begining of this, Cheney tells Pakistan to help us or be blown off the map, yet now they are a "great" ally. Before sept 11th, the administration basically considered Pakistan a rogue state. All this talk of fighting terrorists and we'll go anywhere to get them and wanted dead or alive and now they fight a war that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

These protests strike me as a tactic from another campaign and they are not too smart. It's all strawman arguments. Put false words in Obama's mouth and then attack them. Not one single American would object to us killing bin Laden no matter where he was. As Biden pointed out this is already policy and Bush has stated it publicly already so Obamam did nothing rash.

Jethro, sorry, but the right did not protest Israel going into Lebanon to get Hamas terrorists.

Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 5:09 PM

My point exactly. You fell into my trap little Johnny D. You believe Israel had the right to defend itself and invade a democratically elected neighbor to go after terrorists if the Lebanese government was not willing to root out kidnappers and killers. But if YOUR country, the USA, has actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of OBL and the leadership of the organization who murdered 3000 Americans and Pakistan is unwilling to assist in taking them out, you want to do nothing lest we upset Musharraf's feelings. Why do you want terrorists to live, breath, and plot future murders? Just pointing out your hypocritical nature. Thanks for playing and good night!

Hillary Clinton is sounding more and more like Bush everyday. Is her next statement going to be to declare war on Iraq if her campaign is attacked by Sen. Obama?

good job, jethro. it was so obvious that i thought our resident genius john dyslin might think twice before he spouts off... what was i thinking? of course he'd lay out (well, not exactly lay out, screaming is really more like it) his hypocrisy for the world to see.

according to john d, only israel has the right and duty to violate other's sovereignty in search of terrorists. why does this Iraq War uber-cheerleader want terrorists to survive and thrive in "allied" pakistan? why is dyslin a musharaf apologist?

Big difference there, Jethro between Israel going into Lebanon and us going into Pakistan. First of all, Pakistan is an ally, Lebanon is not an ally of Israel. Second, the Lebanese government is not democratic as you say. Many opposition leaders in Lebanon (and those are folks not beholden to Syria) have been assassinated by Syria and terrorists not in favor of a sane Lebanese government. In addition, Syria has been supporting the terrorists in Lebanon. Pakistan is not supporting the terrorists in Pakistan. IN addition, Lebanon is not a nuclear power, Pakistan is a nuclear power. I could go on, but it would be a waste of my time because rational thought is not something you are capable of. So, I'll leave it at this: Lebanon is not Pakistan and Pakistan is not Lebanon.

Bill, I can not put it in more simpler terms. There is no C.

There are only two options. He was either redundant or he was over reaching.

Going after Osama bc it is the "right thing to do" isn't being debated. Find me someone who would refuse to in the first place. Don't tell me Bush has. He merely sees the problem that Pakistan poses, and is acting accordingly. Preferring to try the channels of communication than "blowing it off the map." You know try the lesser of the two evils if you can when your dealing with blowing something up in the ME theater next to the S. And Central Asia theater. Afganistan did not have WMD, and nor did Iraq. Pakistan does, and is agitated. NOBODY even the president would seriously just go right ahead and "blow a nuclear power" off the map. C there is a difference between what is right and what is smart.

The fight in Iraq has little to none to do with al-QAEDA. U r right. But Iraq is not stopping the president from "the real war on terror." An act on Pakistan is not dependent on our stay in Iraq. An act on Pakistan is a separate issue. Obama has muddled peoples eyes with soap. I don't know why you think that moving out of Iraq would give us any more ground in Pakistan. When the actions on Pakistan are more dependent on Pakistan's ability to cooperate (opting for the ability to cooperate as the lesser of the tow evils diplomacy opts for when available and where things are complicated).

That is my response to you.
Now please do not take offense to this.

I don't know who is more delusional. People who actually thought the world revolved around America enough to think anyone would be willing to actually go ahead with blowing a country off the map (or rocking A nuclear power keg while it is still cooperating), or those who have labeled people in the past, who would be willing to “blow off a country off the map”, as “chickenhawks” ,and now are spouting the same rhetoric back. Tit for tat. If they said it before it must have made sense then and it must make sense now, right? Well, it didn’t then and it doesn’t now. The world is NOT made of countries that could fit the-one-box-fits-all-tough-talk. Nice try.