Obama Says He’d Send Troops Into…Pakistan

Ken McCracken • August 1, 2007

First Obama tells us that the potential mass-murder of Iraqis isn’t a good enough reason to keep our troops in Iraq. Then he tells Hillary that her vote in favor of the Iraq war was “irresponsible.” Then he turns around and tells us that rushing our troops out of Iraq would be “irresponsible,” apparently because it now really does matter if Iraqis get mass-murdered.
Now, Senator Obama is telling us that he’d be tough on al Qaeda in the middle east…by invading Pakistan.

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Just for the record, Pakistan is a nuclear power. And a sovereign nation that doesn’t want our troops in their country. If Obama thinks invading Iraq was irresponsible, why is invading Pakistan (ostensibly an ally, though not a perfect one) suddenly a good idea? Especially when Pakistan is trying to cooperate with our anti-terror operations while simultaneously trying to keep power in the face of some very extremist elements in its population?
And if Obama is oh-so-concerned about al Qaeda, why is he willing to cut-and-run from Iraq where we’re currently engaged with the terror group?
I think this proves how absolutely naive Senator Obama is. Why anyone would continue to think of him as a serious candidate after this gaff is beyond me.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics, War On Terror

http://Array CozyGuy

Once again, Democrats show a complete lack of regard for the negative consequences to the country and the world for their self-serving actions. This is just about Obama talking tough during his Hillary spat. Personally, I think they should go toe-to-toe and have a good old fashioned cat-fight. I bet Obama would scratch her eyes out.

This is getting play in every wild-ass radical website in the Middle East, not that Musharraf’s opposition needs any help recruiting people to try and kill him. It can’t help his popularity among Pakistani moderates who already saw imperialism as the primary aim of the West. So, even our anti-war politicians want to invade their country? What good is being an American partner, then? Allahu Akbar!
http://www.superalerts.com/ george

See, that’s the nice thing about being a Democrat… you don’t need to worry all you have to worry about are poll numbers not reasoning, silly.
http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

Same justification for sending troops into Iran. They harbor terrorists too.

Well, matter of fact, so did Iraq. In Pakistan, they are not there because the government is sponsoring them. So according to Obama’s criteria, a country need only contain terrorists and have the government not actively doing “enough” in America’s view to get rid of them to justify an invasion.

Indonesia harbors terrorists. Invade their asses. Germany is where most of the 9-11 hijackers transitted through. Are they doing enough to clean up their mosques of radicals and possible Al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers? What about the UK? Egypt? Syria? Yemen? Saudi Arabia?

Invade ‘em all Barack. But pull out of Iraq. It was a mistake. Hillary was irresponsible to vote to enter Iraq because either A. Iraq didn’t have any folks that trained in one of OBL’s training camps or B. Saddam was actively engaged in fighting against terrorism and more effective than Musharaf.
http://www.sayanythingblog.com/ electnixon

an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

counter claims of naivety with extreme naivety?
What a buffoon. Oops, am I allowed to say that?
Pamela

Is it just me or is Obama’s mask finally coming off? There is no there….there. BTW Although he denies and Russert has somehow forgot to put it in the transcripts from his show. Obama said (I heard myself) that while he was against the war in 2002 he could not say he would voted against the war if he had been in Congress at the time. His reasoning was that he didn’t know what they (congress) were looking at to make them decide to authorize the war. He said that was why he would not judge them. For all you Obama kool-aid drinkers out there you should take a second look.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Obama Says He’d Send Troops Into…Pakistan

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments