Obama '08?

cicerone imposter wrote:

... usually all air and no substance.

Yes, you are CI!

Quote:

It is not up to me to prove anything

Why do CIs legwork for him?

CNN made the claim, not me.

Bull ****. What you are looking at is fear on the part of the right wing of Obama's candidacy.

He's been straightforward the whole time - if we get intelligence about AQ camps, we're going to attack them, even if Pakistan won't. We're not going to nuke them. We're going to talk to the leaders of countries we don't get along with.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull ****. What you are looking at is fear on the part of the right wing of Obama's candidacy.

He's been straightforward the whole time - if we get intelligence about AQ camps, we're going to attack them, even if Pakistan won't. We're not going to nuke them. We're going to talk to the leaders of countries we don't get along with.

Cycloptichorn

Just eyeing and calling some straight up hypocrisy, Cyclo.

C'mon.

okie wrote:

and the authorization is there for all to read.

and did you read what they authorized?

Lash wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull ****. What you are looking at is fear on the part of the right wing of Obama's candidacy.

He's been straightforward the whole time - if we get intelligence about AQ camps, we're going to attack them, even if Pakistan won't. We're not going to nuke them. We're going to talk to the leaders of countries we don't get along with.

Cycloptichorn

Just eyeing and calling some straight up hypocrisy, Cyclo.

C'mon.

What's the hypocrisy?

Do you equate striking a terrorist camp within a county, to invading that country and deposing the government?

What I see, is an opportunity for some on the right to make hay in the National Defense area - even though more Americans trust the Dems then the Republicans these days, it's still a comfortable place for Republicans to criticize Dems from. You, and the others, are wrong in this instance, however.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lash wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull ****. What you are looking at is fear on the part of the right wing of Obama's candidacy.

He's been straightforward the whole time - if we get intelligence about AQ camps, we're going to attack them, even if Pakistan won't. We're not going to nuke them. We're going to talk to the leaders of countries we don't get along with.

Cycloptichorn

Just eyeing and calling some straight up hypocrisy, Cyclo.

C'mon.

What's the hypocrisy?

Do you equate striking a terrorist camp within a county, to invading that country and deposing the government?

What I see, is an opportunity for some on the right to make hay in the National Defense area - even though more Americans trust the Dems then the Republicans these days, it's still a comfortable place for Republicans to criticize Dems from. You, and the others, are wrong in this instance, however.

Cycloptichorn

So it is now okay according to Obama and you to bomb a country, a supposed friendly government to us, without permission from that government first?

No need to even worry about holding your breath, Thomas. So, he meant "bomb" instead of "invade." Not alot of difference is there?

ehBeth wrote:

okie wrote:

and the authorization is there for all to read.

and did you read what they authorized?

Yes, I did. Did imposter read it? I don't know yet.

First, I disagree completely that Pakistan is 'friendly to us.' They are knowingly harboring a deadly group of terrorists in their country and are in many ways a radical muslim country which is as dangerous to the US as practically any other country on earth.

Second, there may be circumstances in which small engagements can forestall larger wars. I don't support bombing anything, as a policy; but if it has to be done, better a surgical strike then a prolonged campaign against a country.

And, as I said in the other thread, we have to be ready to take responsibility for our actions. We don't need the 'permission' of Pakistan to go after rebels in their territory, but we do have to be mindful of the results of our doing so. This is essentially what Obama said.

Cycloptichorn

It's sort of funny how this argument is skewed to avoid the reality of bombing by comparing it to invasion.

Is bombing ok now?

Is sabre rattling to gather voters kosher?

Can I bring this to mind the next time Rudy does it?

Clinton leads Giuliani in swing state poll
Four hundred fifty-some days before the 2008 election, we get a little queasy when we see the words "Florida," "Pennsylvania" and "Ohio" in the same sentence, let alone in the same poll.

Here we go, anyway.

In a Quinnipiac University swing state poll out this morning, Hillary Clinton holds slim, within-the-margin-of-error leads over Rudy Giuliani in Florida and Pennsylvania and is tied with him in Ohio.

In other possible matchups, Giuliani holds small leads over Barack Obama in Florida and Ohio and a larger lead over him in Pennsylvania, but both Obama and Clinton hold big leads over Fred Thompson in all three states.

Quinnipiac's Peter Brown says the big news here is that Clinton seems to be picking up support from people who didn't use to think much of her. "Not only does she lead by a nose in two of the most important swing states in the Electoral College, but she is turning around independent and Republican voters who previously viewed her negatively," Brown says in a Quinnipiac press release. "In the last two months the share of voters who view her favorably has increased to about 50 percent -- an important milestone -- while the numbers who view her unfavorably has dropped. It is not huge movement, but it is consistent across all three states."

So if I understand you correctly, Thomas, it is not something for me to worry about Iran bombing places in Oklahoma as long as they don't invade us?

It's sort of funny how this argument is skewed to avoid the reality of bombing by comparing it to invasion.

Is bombing ok now?

Is sabre rattling to gather voters kosher?

Can I bring this to mind the next time Rudy does it?

So if I understand you correctly, Thomas, it is not something for me to worry about Iran bombing places in Oklahoma as long as they don't invade us?

After half a decade of fighting in the Islamic world, has not the lesson sunk in with the hawks of both parties? U.S. troops in an Arab or Muslim country are more likely to create an insurgency than quell one.

Undeniably, U.S. combat troops can defend regimes and kill our enemies. Equally undeniably, in the Islamic world, the presence of U.S. troops is an irritant to the population, an instigator of insurrection and a recruiting cause for al-Qaida.

In his famous memo of October 2003, Donald Rumsfeld asked: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" With 3,000 dead Americans since then, 25,000 wounded, scores of thousands of Iraqis dead, and 150,000 troops still fighting four years later, do we not have the answer to Rumsfeld's question?

"Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'?" asked Rumsfeld in 2003. Yep, and it is the same in 2007.

Yet, what do we hear? On to Tehran. On to Pakistan. Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.