WOW - BUSH distorts Obama's foreign policy

[RunInRed 16,438]

Bush on Barack's Foreign Policy: "He's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St6jF1JlPPY

What a blatant lie! How unpresidential of Bush and no real surprise that FNC doesn't challenge him. BIG SIGH

The Pakistan Truth:

BO: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "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."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1

The irony of course, is not this exactly what Bush claims his strategy is? That is, if we knew where Bin Laden/al Qaeda leadership were we would take them out? What a joke. Very disappointed (again and again and again) by our current President.

The Iran Truth:

“We need a president who’ll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that’s what it takes to protect our security,” the Illinois senator told Democrats at a rally. “That’s what I’ll do as your next commander in chief.”

After a viewer asked the candidates if they would be willing to meet with those nations’ leaders, Obama said it was a disgrace that the U.S. won’t hold talks with them. For role models, he invoked late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan for their Cold War diplomacy.

“I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can’t talk to,” said Obama, drawing loud cheers. “We’ve got nothing to fear as long as know who we are and what we stand for and our values.”

“I am confident we can go before the world and talk to the worst dictators and tell them we don’t believe in your values, we don’t believe in your human rights violations, we don’t believe in you exporting terrorism, but if you are willing to work with us in a better direction then we’re willing to talk,” Obama said. “We shouldn’t be afraid.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20013543/

Obama's Stance:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Last time I checked, being willing to talk to some one does not mean embracing some one. Then again, Bush never understood the whole diplomacy concept.

[WinCrimson 61]

That chump doesn't have the credibility to lecture a howler monkey on foreign policy.

January 20, 2009 -- Tick tock tick tock, Dub.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Bush was right, what's the big deal ? Barack has basically said that, and flip flopped, even Hillary remarked at how naive Obama was in foreign policy matters.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy

.

Link

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Bush was right, what's the big deal ? Barack has basically said that, and flip flopped, even Hillary remarked at how naive Obama was in foreign policy matters.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy

.

Link

AURaptor hearts Hillary.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Because she's right about 1 thing, i love hillary ?

[CCTAU 3,335]

That chump doesn't have the credibility to lecture a howler monkey on foreign policy.

January 20, 2009 -- Tick tock tick tock, Dub.

That "chump" has allowed you to be able to sit around an jerk off all day without getting your head blown off or chopped of by terrorists. So I wold take that "chump's" foreign policy over a very naive osama Obama any day.

P.S. Wear glasses. It could save your eyes.

[WinCrimson 61]

That chump doesn't have the credibility to lecture a howler monkey on foreign policy.

January 20, 2009 -- Tick tock tick tock, Dub.

That "chump" has allowed you to be able to sit around an jerk off all day without getting your head blown off or chopped of by terrorists. So I wold take that "chump's" foreign policy over a very naive osama Obama any day.

P.S. Wear glasses. It could save your eyes.

Roll on back, 30 percenter.

You're late to pick your kids up from school...

[Tigermike 3,040]

Please explain these news stories.

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan

updated 8:09 a.m. CT, Wed., Aug. 1, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

Obama says he would strike inside Pakistan

August 3, 2007

link

Obama says he favors U.S. strikes on Al Qaeda in Pakistan

Published: August 1, 2007

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/obama.php

"I Hope I Can Be President"

"My first action as President will be to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately and attack Pakistan!"

"Hey you said you wanted change!"

WOW - runinred63 distorts what Obama actually said, gets mad at Bus for pointing it out and accuses Fox News of being less than honest.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Please explain these news stories.

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan

updated 8:09 a.m. CT, Wed., Aug. 1, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

Obama says he would strike inside Pakistan

August 3, 2007

link

Obama says he favors U.S. strikes on Al Qaeda in Pakistan

Published: August 1, 2007

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/obama.php

"I Hope I Can Be President"

"My first action as President will be to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately and attack Pakistan!"

"Hey you said you wanted change!"

WOW - runinred63 distorts what Obama actually said, gets mad at Bus for pointing it out and accuses Fox News of being less than honest.

If you would actually read them, no one would need to explain them to you:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act," Obama said, "we will."

Two big "ifs" there. Do you disagree with him?

[RunInRed 16,438]

I'm not sure TM is capable of reading any thing that does not support his pre-conceived "truths"

[Tigermike 3,040]

Please explain these news stories.

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan

updated 8:09 a.m. CT, Wed., Aug. 1, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

Obama says he would strike inside Pakistan

August 3, 2007

link

Obama says he favors U.S. strikes on Al Qaeda in Pakistan

Published: August 1, 2007

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/america/obama.php

"I Hope I Can Be President"

"My first action as President will be to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately and attack Pakistan!"

"Hey you said you wanted change!"

WOW - runinred63 distorts what Obama actually said, gets mad at Bus for pointing it out and accuses Fox News of being less than honest.

If you would actually read them, no one would need to explain them to you: (I did read them, my question was to see how Obama Boy would spin it.)

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act," Obama said, "we will."

(You mean like some of that credible and actionable intell we had from Iraq?)

Two big "ifs" there. Do you disagree with him?

So as a dim supporting a candidate who says he plans to immediately get out of Iraq, you don't have a problem with him starting another war with Pakistan?

I'm not sure TM is capable of reading any thing that does not support his pre-conceived "truths"

That would be laughable if it were not coming from the Obamarama boy. Not your truth, no.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

That chump doesn't have the credibility to lecture a howler monkey on foreign policy.

January 20, 2009 -- Tick tock tick tock, Dub.

That is just plain disgraceful of you to refer to Obama as a "howler monkey."

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I watched the video and have read the links. Bush is wrong. Obama did not say he would "attack Pakistan." He said he would attack Al Qaida operatives and targets in Pakistan. That's a big difference.

Imagine if a terrorist group from the US that had some grievance against the Canadian government snuck across the border and bombed a building in Vancouver, killing hundreds or thousands of Canadians, then snuck back to their hideout in the Washington state mountains. Imagine also that the US government, for whatever reason, couldn't or wouldn't dedicate the resources to hunt them down even though we declare our solidarity with Canada over the matter. Maybe there's even good reason to believe that a significant number of the US military personnel actually sympathize with the terrorists to one degree or another. After years of being diplomatic about the matter and hoping we'd handle it, the Canadian PM finally has enough. He gets good intelligence on their whereabouts and goes after them with his own military to kill them or capture them and bring them to justice. Anyone with a half-ounce of sense knows in that scenario that Canada did not just attack the US.

And frankly, I agree with Obama on this and I'm shocked any of you don't. If you were President and had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama Bin Ladin and other Al Qaida leaders in Pakistan, you wouldn't go after them? You'd trust the Pakistan military? And you call Obama naive? Geez. I promise you don't have to vote for him just because you think he might have made some sense on one point.

Second, he said nothing about befriending or embracing Ahmadinejad. That's a mischaracterization and you all know it. He said that he'd talk to him. That he wouldn't take that option off the table.

This is the kind of crap that wears people out about politics...not only that Bush would say something so stupid on its face, but that people would leap to his defense simply because he belongs to the party they vote for.

[RunInRed 16,438]

Finally, the voice of reason.

[Tigermike 3,040]

Finally, the voice of reason.

Obviously it wasn't likely to came from you.

[AFTiger 282]

I watched the video and have read the links. Bush is wrong. Obama did not say he would "attack Pakistan." He said he would attack Al Qaida operatives and targets in Pakistan. That's a big difference.

Imagine if a terrorist group from the US that had some grievance against the Canadian government snuck across the border and bombed a building in Vancouver, killing hundreds or thousands of Canadians, then snuck back to their hideout in the Washington state mountains. Imagine also that the US government, for whatever reason, couldn't or wouldn't dedicate the resources to hunt them down even though we declare our solidarity with Canada over the matter. Maybe there's even good reason to believe that a significant number of the US military personnel actually sympathize with the terrorists to one degree or another. After years of being diplomatic about the matter and hoping we'd handle it, the Canadian PM finally has enough. He gets good intelligence on their whereabouts and goes after them with his own military to kill them or capture them and bring them to justice. Anyone with a half-ounce of sense knows in that scenario that Canada did not just attack the US.

And frankly, I agree with Obama on this and I'm shocked any of you don't. If you were President and had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama Bin Ladin and other Al Qaida leaders in Pakistan, you wouldn't go after them? You'd trust the Pakistan military? And you call Obama naive? Geez. I promise you don't have to vote for him just because you think he might have made some sense on one point.

Second, he said nothing about befriending or embracing Ahmadinejad. That's a mischaracterization and you all know it. He said that he'd talk to him. That he wouldn't take that option off the table.

This is the kind of crap that wears people out about politics...not only that Bush would say something so stupid on its face, but that people would leap to his defense simply because he belongs to the party they vote for.

So attacking the territory of a soveriegn nation without its consent is ok with Democrats now.

[sogaaufan 27]

I watched the video and have read the links. Bush is wrong. Obama did not say he would "attack Pakistan." He said he would attack Al Qaida operatives and targets in Pakistan. That's a big difference.

Imagine if a terrorist group from the US that had some grievance against the Canadian government snuck across the border and bombed a building in Vancouver, killing hundreds or thousands of Canadians, then snuck back to their hideout in the Washington state mountains. Imagine also that the US government, for whatever reason, couldn't or wouldn't dedicate the resources to hunt them down even though we declare our solidarity with Canada over the matter. Maybe there's even good reason to believe that a significant number of the US military personnel actually sympathize with the terrorists to one degree or another. After years of being diplomatic about the matter and hoping we'd handle it, the Canadian PM finally has enough. He gets good intelligence on their whereabouts and goes after them with his own military to kill them or capture them and bring them to justice. Anyone with a half-ounce of sense knows in that scenario that Canada did not just attack the US.

And frankly, I agree with Obama on this and I'm shocked any of you don't. If you were President and had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama Bin Ladin and other Al Qaida leaders in Pakistan, you wouldn't go after them? You'd trust the Pakistan military? And you call Obama naive? Geez. I promise you don't have to vote for him just because you think he might have made some sense on one point.

Second, he said nothing about befriending or embracing Ahmadinejad. That's a mischaracterization and you all know it. He said that he'd talk to him. That he wouldn't take that option off the table.

This is the kind of crap that wears people out about politics...not only that Bush would say something so stupid on its face, but that people would leap to his defense simply because he belongs to the party they vote for.

Thank you very much. This thing smacks of politics as usual. I have no intention to vote for Osama and I have several reasons for my decision. This isn't one of them. In fact, this type of spinning someones words is the very reason that I feel as though this Dems vs. Reps crap is KILLING this country. This is also why approval ratings for politicians in general are so low. These "gotcha" politics are terrible.

[RunInRed 16,438]

TM-

So not only can you not string together a proper sentence (it "came from me"), you're still unable to reason and understand what has been said. Titan affirmed all the points I made and called your rebuttal a bunch of nonsense, which it obviously was.

[Tigermike 3,040]

TM-

So not only can you not string together a proper sentence (it "came from me"), your still unable to reason and understand what has been said. Titan affirmed all the points I made and called your rebuttal a bunch of nonsense, which it obviously was.

So you want to get into a little war over spelling? OK

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I watched the video and have read the links. Bush is wrong. Obama did not say he would "attack Pakistan." He said he would attack Al Qaida operatives and targets in Pakistan. That's a big difference.

Imagine if a terrorist group from the US that had some grievance against the Canadian government snuck across the border and bombed a building in Vancouver, killing hundreds or thousands of Canadians, then snuck back to their hideout in the Washington state mountains. Imagine also that the US government, for whatever reason, couldn't or wouldn't dedicate the resources to hunt them down even though we declare our solidarity with Canada over the matter. Maybe there's even good reason to believe that a significant number of the US military personnel actually sympathize with the terrorists to one degree or another. After years of being diplomatic about the matter and hoping we'd handle it, the Canadian PM finally has enough. He gets good intelligence on their whereabouts and goes after them with his own military to kill them or capture them and bring them to justice. Anyone with a half-ounce of sense knows in that scenario that Canada did not just attack the US.

And frankly, I agree with Obama on this and I'm shocked any of you don't. If you were President and had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama Bin Ladin and other Al Qaida leaders in Pakistan, you wouldn't go after them? You'd trust the Pakistan military? And you call Obama naive? Geez. I promise you don't have to vote for him just because you think he might have made some sense on one point.

Second, he said nothing about befriending or embracing Ahmadinejad. That's a mischaracterization and you all know it. He said that he'd talk to him. That he wouldn't take that option off the table.

This is the kind of crap that wears people out about politics...not only that Bush would say something so stupid on its face, but that people would leap to his defense simply because he belongs to the party they vote for.

So attacking the territory of a soveriegn nation without its consent is ok with Democrats now.

You're shifting the argument. Bush characterized it as "attacking Pakistan", which as I pointed out is a stupid and ridiculous thing to say for anyone that understands English.

[Tigermike 3,040]

TM-

So not only can you not string together a proper sentence (it "came from me"), your still unable to reason and understand what has been said. Titan affirmed all the points I made and called your rebuttal a bunch of nonsense, which it obviously was.

The politics of hate. The politics of fear. We will get past all of this by ignoring posters like you.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Can we get back on topic here?

[Tiger Al 0]

Can we get back on topic here?

I'll second that.

[mattd 3]

The problem is that a JUNIOR Senator is trying to talk about foreign policy, of which he has no experience. I mean come on...he would be overwhelmed.

[RunInRed 16,438]

What foreign policy experience did Bush have as two term Governor? This whole experience argument is a joke if we look at past candidates who have been elected.

For the record, Obama has served on the foreign relations committee since being elected to the Senate. He is the only candidate in this race with the judgment to realize Iraq was a mistake from the get go. He clearly has the background, credibility and skills to engage in diplomacy efforts - which we so badly need. So to dismiss him using this "junior senator" argument is a big mistatke IMO.