The war Obama needs to win

Republicans repeat the same lies over and over, and the mainstream media continues to give them credibility. Every Democrat, including Senator Obama, has said time and again that we should only be going after terrorists in Iraq. Please stop printing Republican lies about Democrats, do your job as journalists and make sure readers get the truth.

Unless the Republicans have stolen a copy of Obama's speech, how can they "already have a critique available of the as-yet undelivered speech."? Unless they will do nothing more than regurgitate their blatantly wrong talking points that have been proved false many times over.

Independent Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman nails his fellow Democrats (esp. Obama) for abandoning the traditions of the democratic party:

"Lieberman, the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee, insists he is not actively considering joining the Republican Party. But he is keeping that possibility wide open as his disenchantment grows with Democratic leaders. The main sticking points are their attempts to end the war in Iraq and their hesitation to take a harder line against Iran.

“I think either [Democrats] are, in my opinion, respectfully, naïve in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they’re simply hesitant to use American power, including military power,” Lieberman said in a wide-ranging interview with The Hill.

“There is a very strong group within the party that I think doesn’t take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough.” ...

As Lieberman sees it, however, the Democratic Party has slipped away from its “most important and successful times” of the middle of last century, where it was tough on Communism and progressive on domestic policy."

Yo Dingbat Loony Lefties, Barack's people sent out a release about the speech and what it will cover. Pretty much standard operating procedure.
Really, are you folks this lame and ignorant?
Paul, Barack the Democrats say we should only be going after the terrorists in Iraq? Really? First of all, who says that? Second, I thought the Barack and Democrats want us out of Iraq? Third, who do you think we're going after now?

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama says in advance excerpts of the speech. "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"

John D would let Al-Qaeda's leadership continue to have sleepovers and host dinner parties for each other just like the Bush Administration has.

RNC Bruce,

What were you saying about Lieberman back in 2000?

I now await the calls for Obama to be impeached for advocating an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation. Has Pakistan ever attacked us? Was Pakistan involved in 9/11? What if we get there and don't find Osama bin Laden because our intelligence was wrong or because he and his compatriots slipped away into, say, Iraq? And what happens when the first American soldiers die? Does that mean we pull out? Has Obama ever served in the military? Will he send his children into combat? Are any of Obama's relatives in the Armed Forces? How can he send any of America's boys and girls into combat if he won't go himself, or send his children or other family members? Based on his rhetoric, and that of his supporters, these are questions Sen. Obama must answer if this proposal is to be taken seriously.

It's easy to know what is in Obama's speech, it's the same "What ever is opposing the other guy" rhetoric that every useless politician gives. No one even seems to discuss real issues in this forum anymore. It's just more partisan slander. It's just rediculous. Since we force ourselves into division all of the time I'm sure that our real enemies are laughing at how easy we make it for them to CONTROL us any way they see fit. Get over the politics. Let's please find someone who will run this country with the best interest of all Americans and not just the ones that happen to be opposed to the other guy. I am ashamed at what our government has become!

JB got his RNC talking points today!

Doug Zook,

Since Bruce quoted what Lieberman said, and didn't give an opinion on Lieberman maybe you should ask what did Lieberman say about himself in 2000.

Doug Zook's gay lover

The question to Democrats like "doug zook": what were Democrats like YOU saying about Joe Lieberman in 2000? I'd wager you voted for him to be VP--one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

JB is absolutely right.

What would Obama do if the Pak army fought back? Would he finish the job or cut and run? What if Musharraf opposed US intervention and occupation of his country, would he meet the same fate as Saddam? And, oh my, what would he do if the other Muslim countries in the world opposed the action? Would Obama then be guilty of creating more terrorist followers?

It's repulsive to see the same Demokraut hypocrites (and their little sycophants on the Swamp)that want to cut and run NOW trying to talk tough.

It's BS Democratic blather. It's too little too late, they've already told our enemies, our troops, and the world we can't be counted on and we will cut and run at the drop of a hat.

Bruce... I don't follow how it's condemning of the Democrats that they are hesitant to use military power. We should all demand leadership that is hesitant to use our military power.

Strange how Republicans (and that includes Lieberman) think it's bad policy to be thoughtful, thorough, and yes, hesitant with the use of our military. It's the antithetical policies of the Republicans in this regard that has made an absolute travesty of our foreign policy while at the same time utterly decimating our military.

It's like these fools never learn from their mistakes.. they keep saying "all in" after their chips have long been lost.

"The question to Democrats like "doug zook": what were Democrats like YOU saying about Joe Lieberman in 2000?"

That we was a lousy self-serving VP candidate, with the principles of, well, a Republican. Instead of resigning his seat in 2000 which would have allowed the popular Democratic Attorney General to run for it, Lieberman held on to his seat, hedging his bets, and thus guaranteeing that if he won the White House the Republican Governer would then appoint a Republican to take his seat.

Joe Lieberman cares about only Joe Lieberman. That's fine and dandy, but please give up the "principled Joe" talking points now that he is no longer a Democrat. Let him go Republican. If it shifts control of the Senate to the GOP, he will be the 3rd most disliked man in America after George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney.

Look at all the Republicans rushing out to defend Osama Bin Ladin's safe haven in Pakistan.

Why do you all want to protect him? Why do you advocate leaving those who actually attacked us on 9/11 alone?

More proof that you can't trust Republicans to fight terrorists.

RNC Bruce,

I didn't have an opinion about Lieberman one way or the other. I figured it was Gore's campaign strategy to try to pump up the Jewish vote in Florida. With the exception of Dan Quayle, I can't think of a veep candidate who really gave voters cause to pause.

And you were saying about Lieberman in 2000?

In Lewis Carroll's, Through the Looking Glass, poor Alice really wants to buy something in a shop full of shelves seemingly stuffed with goodies.
But whenever she tries to actually focus on one goodie the shelf is bare!
So, too, with liberals who never wish to fight the war we are in.
It is always somewhere else they say they want to fight.
AND, if real trouble arises in one of the places that they said they were more than willing to go up against, all of a sudden they come up with an excuse not to want to go there, either.

It's not so much that Obama's Pakistan announcement is silly or inconsistent (though it is both), but that we all know that, come crunch time, Obama will never back his rhetoric with force.

You rubber stamp Obamaphiles out there, any of you favor using force in Pakistan?

Paul O.,

Quit it will ya. People are going to talk.

Ok, first of all I don't like it when Loony Lefties post as others or use some sort of ridiculous attempt at a slur. So, the idiot who posted as "doug zook's gay lover and loverboy," stop it now! That's horsecrap! Don't pull the same sh*t that John E, Janet, Raving Loon, et al pull, OK?

Second, I find it hilarious that the Loony Left that has been so against the Iraq War, invasion of a "sovereign" nation all of a sudden seems to be in favor of invading Pakistan!
So, let me ask you folks this:
1. What happens after we invade Pakistan?
2. Do we create more terrorists by invading Pakistan?
3. Musharraf has been an OK ally, even arresting and killing many Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. So, if we invade Pakistan and he gets toppled by the Loony Islamic extremists, what then?
4. Will a Civil War break out in Pakistan if we invade the country?

Barrack was quoted as saying

"My lofty speeches of non- commital generalities will render our enemies smitten with envy of my charisma and how articulate I am.
They will then lay down thier arms and fix all differences we have.

It's worked on left wingers....specifically guilty white liberals....so why wouldn't it work on others I ask?"

Then all the left wingers will go " AWWWWWWW, he speaks so well" "I'm voting for him!"

John D.,

Thank you.

RNC Bruce,

Yeah, I do.

If we have real time actionable intelligence of where top al-Queda and/or Taliban are located I say whack 'em. We'll deal with the political fallout afterwards.

No more B-52s flying circle 8s over Tora Bora, whack 'em.

Cut the head off the snake.

"...all of a sudden seems to be in favor of invading Pakistan!"

Posted by: John D | August 1, 2007 12:43 PM

Torture Johnny D said it so it must be true!! He never lies

Throughout the 2004 Presidential Primaries the Democratic Candidates lamented that we "took our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Your talking points are wrong!! Keep protecting Bin Laden.

"We'll deal with the political fallout afterwards."

Like the Dems are dealing with the fallout over going into Iraq?

Brilliant thinking, let's further destabilize the one Muslim country with nukes and worry about it later. Then we can cut and run again.

While I have no issue "hitting" a country that is harbouring terrorist or a serious threat (again, I was against Iraq), what happens when we invade/bomb Pakistan? What do we do when they use one of their nuclear weapons against our troops, or, give to a terrorist organization to use off the coast of NYC or San Francisco? Once you are a nuclear power, you are pretty much untouchable, unless the other side is willing to risk hundreds of thousands to million of deaths of its own.

Obama just walked into the trap showing how ignorant he is regarding foreign policy.

Paul O,

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Dubya let bin-Laden escape from Tora Bora, but we're supposed to keep hammering (ha, ha) "al-Queda" (ha, ha)in Iraq who wouldn't be there if we hadn't went there in the 1st place.

What do you think Pakistan is going to do with those nukes? Tangle with us?

If you are really interested in quashing al-Queda then you have to be for finding bin-Laden and killing him - wherever he is.

"We will make no distinction between terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

George W. Bush Sepetember 12, 2001

"We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them, and feed them, and house them. Make no mistake about it. Underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it."

George W. Bush September 15, 2001

"But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice. Those who harbor terrorists will be brought to justice."

George W. Bush September 16, 2001

"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

George W. Bush September 20, 2001

Obama wants to invade Pakistan? And that's supposed to not be naive?

Nice attempt, Lefties.
First of all, Doug, do not lie in saying "Dubya let bin Laden escape." That is just historical revisionism.
Anonymous: Musharraf is not providing safe haven for Al Qaeda. Many Al Qaeda leaders have been arrested in Pakistan.
The sad reality is that Musharraf is afraid of going into Northwest Pakistan. He is in a very tenuous position there.
So again, Lefties, answer the questions I posed earlier.
And, Janet, do you realize how worthless and hysterical you are?

Better a surgical strike on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border attacking the real terrorists than bombing Mecca. That's Trancredo's suggestion, by the way.

So basically Obama is Bush-Cheany light. He wants to make the same mistake that Bush made by invading an insovereign nation just like we did with Iraq. What happens when the UN does not agree, then Obama has made AMerica hated even more around the globe. You Obamites are hypocrites. All the things you slam BUsh for is basically the same things that Obama is proposing with regards to Pakistan. You guys would be more respected if you just came out and said listen I love Obama and whatever he says no matter if it is wrong or right I will defend it to my grave. Can you say amateur. Hillary's clan has to be loving every minute of this. THey are just sitting back and watching this guy implode.

John D.,

Dubya knew bin-Laden was at Tora Bora and called off the air strikes for 8 hours during which time bin-Laden escaped.

If that's not letting bin-Laden escape what is it?

"Anonymous: Musharraf is not providing safe haven for Al Qaeda....
And, Janet, do you realize how worthless and hysterical you are?"

Posted by: John D | August 1, 2007 2:21 PM

Let's review the facts, Johnny. Al-Qaeda leaders are having slumber parties, having dinner together, attending meetings, and training in the mountains all while Musharraf signs TRUCE agreements with Tribal leaders. It has been almost 6 years since 9/11. As Paulo would say, "HMMMMMM"

PS I'm sorry you mummy dropped you and/or didn't feed you when you cried. Good night, Johnny D.

Oh, how I would love to gol tit for tat with you Janet. For instance, it would be cool to say, "Janet, dear, you must be a partial birth abortion experiment that went bad." But then Mark would disaprove of that. So, I'll be nice and just say your comments and actions speak volumes of the low the depths of your existence. Right, Susie, er Janet?

John D-

When AQ launches their next terrorist attack on the US from Pakistan, what do you propose we do?

Nothing? Send Musharraf a thank you note? Attack a country that was in no way involved?

"When AQ launches their next terrorist attack on the US from Pakistan, what do you propose we do?"

How about we work with the Musharraf government to avoid that from happening like we are doing now under President Bush?

What are the Dems big plans on Diplomacy with Pakistan? Sounds like they want to just bomb the crap out of it. How very hawkish (and macho) of them.

I guess we could preemtively invade another sovereign country that was in no way involved with the 9/11 attacks like you said. That's a brilliant plan from the Dems.

Or Tony, we could just drop a big-ass botulism bomb on them.

No Lisa, that is not what is being discussed. Obama said that we would go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan if Musharraf could not. That in no way implies that we won't work with Musharraf, or that we will "bomb the crap out of it."

And the reality is, if there is another major AQ attck on this country, and it was planned out of the AQ stronghold in Pakistan, whoever the President is at that point, is going to have to do something about it. If Gore had become President n 2000 instead of Bush, he too would have had no choice but to launch military action against AQ forces in Afghanistan.

Using our military force to go after an organization that has attacked us in the past, and likely will in the future is not an option we can completely take off the table. Of course diplomacy is the first resort, and of course it would be preferable to have Pakistan take care of the problem, but it is a problem that has to be dealt with at some point and it may have to be dealt with by us.

Lisa, I think you need to get your sarcasm sensors checked. You seem not to have the ability to sense sarcasm.

"Obama said that we would go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan if Musharraf could not."

No Tony, Obama said he would go after AlQaeda in Pakistan if Musharraf WOULD not.

Big difference.

The Afghan government just after 9/11 and the Pak government now aren't close to being the same. We tried diplomacy on the Taliban to try and get them to hand over Osama and the Taliban chose not to work with us. That is hardly (as Obama is implying) the case with Musharraf.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were US special forces in Pakistan already with the permission of Musharraf.

Obamas talk of attacking Pakistan could actually be harmful.

The guy needs to think before he opens his mouth.

I hope you're right Lisa about Musharraf's cooperation. The evidence isn't really there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/world/asia/17pakistan.html?ex=1342324800&en=9f0c0d488499c302&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I guess DoD forgot to tell Obama and the NYT (and unfortunately, Tony) their secret war plans.

But they told you, right Lisa?

Or is it that you are still one of the very few who actually continue to have faith that the Bush Administration is doing the right thing?

Tony,

Bush may be a tool, but I don't think that makes the military a bunch of incompetent boobs.

I believe the military has people in Pakistan right now in spite of the mistakes Bush has made and in spite of the cut-and-runners like you.

Lisa, I don't know about you, but the thought of the military conducting operations in a country without Presidential direction isn't exactly a comforting thought to me.

Nice try, Tony, not what I said at all.

The military advises the president on options available and acts when the president authorizes.

I don't think the military sits around on it's hands doing nothing while the President plans all aspects of all war plans.

Saying the President hasn’t authorized plans developed by the military and saying the President hasn’t 'directed' military operations are two completely different things.

OK then Lisa, so now your position is that most likely the US military is operating in Pakistan with Presidential authorization.

So what then is your problem with Obama's statement? He's said he would consider doing the very same thing. Is it that you expect a good President to lie to the Amnerican people about where the military is operating?

"So what then is your problem with Obama's statement?"

You're kidding, right?

You don't know the difference between an operation authorized By the President and having the consent of Musharraf, and just attacking Pakistan because Obama doesn't think they are doing enough?

Come on, Tony, pull your head out!

"Is it that you expect a good President to lie to the Amnerican people about where the military is operating?"

I expect a good President to keep classified on-going military operations, CLASSIFIED.

I take back what I said before, leave your head where it's at. There's no hope for you.

Lisa, read the quote again. Obama did not say he would attack Pakistan. He said he would attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan. That is a very different thing. Don't you get that?

"That is a very different thing."

No it's not, ask the Pakistanis.

Lisa-

If the Pakistanis protect Al Qaeda, are they really an ally? Are they any more any ally than the Taleban was?

All Pakis are bad, let's nuke 'em.

Feel better, Tony?

Lisa-

Brilliant come back.

Backed yourself into a corner again, huh?

No corner, I’m just tired of going back and forth with you.

You say we should attack Pakistan because they aren’t our allies and are hiding Bin Laden, then you say we wouldn’t really be attacking them......

Obama isn’t treating Pakistan like an ally by threatening to attack it or otherwise violate it’s sovereignty.

Comparing them to the Taliban is another one of your tired analogies, and I'm not going to play that game anymore.

Like I said before:

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, pull your head out.

No lisa I've never ever said we should attack Pakistan.

What I have said is that we cannot rule out attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

You keep proclaiming how great an ally Pakistan is. Please explain how that matches up with your position that they possibly would not let us attack Al Qaeda within their territory. It seems pretty clear that providing safe haven to Al Qaeda, or preventing attacks on Al Qaeda, would not be the actions of an ally in the War on Terror.

When you decide what your position really is let me know.

You win, go ahead and attack Pakistan.

But, Obama's plan to pull the troops out of Iraq to attack Pakistan has just killed his campaign.

Obama's lack of experience and the 'support' of dolts like you have sealed his fate.

No one is happier than Hillary.

You Dems are brilliant.

What's up with posts not making it on certain threads?