Obama Invades Pakistan!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070806/ap_on_.../bush_karzai_25

CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush said Monday that with the right intelligence U.S. and Pakistan governments can take out al-Qaida leaders, and he wouldn't say whether he would consult first with Pakistan before ordering U.S. forces to act on their own.

Umm, so this is pretty much exactly what Obama said.
"Sit down <strike>Obama</strike> Bush, sit down - you are dangerous."

 

They said essentially the SAME thing!
Dr. B, you were parroting the neocon spin that was put out right after Obama's comments. Now Bush essentially agrees with the idea a week later? How do you spin that? All I'm trying to say, is you have to take the spin (from BOTH sides) with a grain of salt. You have a habit of parroting the neocon talking points verbatim BEFORE they really shake out. You got nailed on this one.
It shows your bias and inability to view any topic with an open mind.

That's something I am continually trying to get everyone here to do instead of lining up on the sidelines, as if politics are some high school football game. Listen to both sides before judgement and debate the issue as if we're all Americans instead of enemies.

You simply can't discount ideas/position from people because they are not YOUR parties ideas and on the flipside you cannot unquestionably accept your side's position.

 

"he is being killed in the press, being nailed by his opponents, being poked at in editorial pages."
That's what happens to ALL politicians! Always has and always will.

Why can't you have rational unbiased dialogue? All you do is post other's half truths and exagerations here, as if your a neocon campaign president. When they are refuted, you just go on to the next spin story.
The whole point of your post in the beginning was to discredit Obama's idea. You claimed his statements were dangerous and the idea was completely stupid. Now you subtly accept the idea an start calling him a neocon. (That cartoon is a replicate of an earlier one with Bush on top!) So what, Obama and Bush are cut from the same cloth now?

I swear, Bush could flip out and turn in to a hippy tree hugger and you would still agree with everthing he says. Or Hillary could start rooting for war with Iran, and you'd suddenly change your mind and decide we should NOT attack Iran.
Why don't you think for yourself once in a while instead of religiously following the Rush type cheerleaders you listen too. (BTW, I'll say the same thing to a liberal who just parrots the Air America positions too!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 6 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]491359[/snapback]</div>

Actually, they didn't. President Bush said he wouldn't rule out acting independently. Senator Obama said he would act preemptively if our ally didn't cater to his wishes. In the world of international relations, there's a world of difference in those two statements. Not in intent, though. So that makes me feel much better about Senator Obama, as he is serious about being the President. So is Senator Clinton and Senator Biden.

The President of the US should never rule out any action, including the use of nuclear weapons, even against civilians. But the President of the US should never use language that indicates he is going to use any action unless its carefully calibrated with our overall strategy. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, that lasted only a few months, strayed too far into the overt "we will do this" territory, and I was glad to see it wither away. There is wisdom to both parts of the saying "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 7 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]491724[/snapback]</div>

What is preemptive about pursuing Osama Bin Laden?
He murdered 3000 Americans and should be pursued and prosecuted.Why is this only a view from the left?Conservatives dont see it this way, only because Bush has been derelict in this duty and its an embarrassment.
Its apparent that Bushs main concern is not actually fighting terrorism.The war in Iraq is not about Alqueda .The Alqueda faction in Iraq is estimated to be only %5 of the insurgents.Those who align themselves with Alqueda are a "franchise" not the original Alqueda who attacked the WTC. And they didnt exist before Bush invaded.
Bush copies his policy after junior Senator Obama, because he realizes how inept he has been.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 8 2007, 06:24 AM) [snapback]492299[/snapback]</div>

"The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq...While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents."

"The CSIS report says: "The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.""
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

"The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda."
GW Bush

Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/

One major reason for al-Qaida's resurgence, according to the report, is its "association with" al-Qaida in Iraq. (Note, by the way, that these two organizations are said to be "associated" or "affiliated" with each other; contrary to what Bush has said in recent speeches, they are not the same entity.) This affiliation "helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
http://www.slate.com/id/2170564/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Aug 8 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]492708[/snapback]</div>

Brian Fishman, instructor at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, explains to Bill Moyers that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is connected to the central al Qaeda network "in name only," and that the group, "has attempted to brand itself as al Qaeda because that improves its position. That allows it to sort of up its stature. It's taken on a brand name. It's a franchise."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07272007/profile.html