I had to laugh yesterday while driving to the San Fernando Valley and listening to the Rush Limbaugh show. Yes, I do listen to Rush once in awhile – and yesterday he had a hilarious bit about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Apparently Obama recently said that, according to the Register, he would”dialogue with dictators” and be open to “invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants.”
Rush dug up audio clips from what he refers to as the “drive by media” wherein one newscaster after another took turns saying that Obama’s speech was “muscular.” Good grief! How is it possible that EVERY talking head had the SAME thing to say about Obama’s comments? It’s just nuts – they must all be reading from the same talking points!
Well, the comments were not muscular, they were stupid! In fact they were so dumb that the State Department “on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.”
Obama was not the only candidate shooting off his mouth. Hillary Clinton pulled a “Crazy Claudia” when she said that she was “refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons” in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Not to be outdone by Obama and Clinton, GOP nutjob candidate Tom Tancredo piped in with the sort of comment you usually hear at OC GOP Central Committee meetings, he would nuke Muslim holy sites to prevent terrorist attacks. Sure, that will work. You will only have a billion angry Muslims to contend with!
It is funny though to see Clinton and Tancredo virtually on the same nuclear page. God knows what else they have in common. Tancredo is well known for hating immigrants, but President Bill Clinton’s administration was one of the worst when it came to helping immigrants – they closed the door instead of opening it. That is one of the reasons I don’t like Hillary – and now we have one more reason to steer clear of her.
So what about John Edwards? If Obama is not ready, and he clearly is not, and Clinton is too loca, what about Edwards? According to media reports, he is not tied with Obama and Clinton in a new poll in Iowa.
One paper said, with regard to the Iowa poll, that “Though Clinton is seen by Iowa voters as the strongest leader and most electable candidate, her rivals get higher marks for likeability.” That’s right – La Clintonista is UNLIKEABLE in the extreme, but Obama and Edwards, and certainly Bill Richardson, are all nice guys.
I took a look today at Edwards’ website. He sounds fairly reasonable, especially compared to the gunslinging Obama and Clinton. Here are a few of his thoughts regarding the war on terrorism:
- As president, Edwards will create a “Marshall Corps” of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions in weak and failing states that can become hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability.
- Edwards will ensure that we aggressively gather intelligence in accordance with proven methods. He will also avoid giving others an excuse to abandon international law by closing Guantanamo Bay, restoring habeas corpus, and banning torture.
- Over 1,000 vehicles like tanks and helicopters have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use. As president, Edwards will re-invest in the maintenance of our equipment.
- Terrorism takes root in weak and failing states. Poverty increases the risk to America by providing a safe harbor for instability, extremism, and terrorism. As president, Edwards will attack these root causes with dramatic increases in funding for global primary education, clean drinking water, protection of constitutional and democratic rights, and economic opportunity.
As a safety professional, with a genuine interest in fighting infectious disease, I applaud what Edwards has to say about global disease outbreaks, he is dedicated to “fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.” Amen!
Richardson is still my choice for President, but he continues to lag in the polls. At this point Edwards is looking like the guy to go with if we are to avoid electing the La Clintonista or “the not ready for prime time” Obama.
Art, you need to go back and rewrite paragraph two. You wrote it in such a way that people could easily interpret those quotes as words uttered by Obama, when in reality they’re the reporters words.
The gist of his foreign policy approach is that he’s not going to rule out talking with our enemies. And with regard to Pakistan, he thinks we should not discount the option of crossing over the border to take out known Al Qaeda.
Now what’s so stupid about that?
N2justice,
I put the words in quotes not to attribute them to Obama specifically, but because they were quotes from the Register, but the article in the Register was indeed based on his comments.
As for invading Pakistan, please remember that they are a sovereign country, their President has tried to help us but we allowed Al Qaeda members to escape Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, and we could end up helping extremists to take over Pakistan – and THEY HAVE NUKES!
Thus it is indeed a bad idea. And Obama’s comments could destabilize Pakistan sooner rather than later.
You realize that they are next door to India – where a lot of our operator and data services are conducted?
Also, such unilateral action is a terrible idea. We ought to be working more with the world community, not less. The new president of France is a conservative. And Germany also has new leadership in place that is right leaning. We need to work with our friends in Europe, not go around them while invading sovereign countries.
Go back and read Edwards’s comments. He knows what he is talking about. Obama clearly does not.
C’mon Art…that paragraph is confusing and you know it. The Register article uses words that put a sinister twist on Obama’s position…ridiculous choice of words on their part, and misleading writing on yours.
Who said anything about “invading” Pakistan? Have you ever heard of special forces operations. Have you ever heard of a targeted mission by a Predator drone? We both know Obama isn’t talking about an Iraq-style invasion of a sovereign nation.
We know this administration likes to stifle debate. Unfortunately for the State Department, but fortunately for us, we have a little thing in this country called freedom of speech. In spite of Tancredo’s absurd comments, it’s ridiculous for the State Department to try and shut these people up.
N2justice,
I disagree. But the link to the article is embedded in my post. Readers can read the article for themselves and make up their own minds.
BTW, Obama got ripped in a lot of newspapers because of these comments. I truly think this is the beginning of the end of his campaign.
As for the style of invasion, all the ones you mentioned are illegal and ill advised. As I said, unilateral action is just not going to work – and destabilizing Pakistan further is just plain stupid.
I don’t think the State Department is as whack as the rest of the Bush regime. Usually diplomats are not politicians. They stay on from one administration to the next. They know that Obama screwed up and his comments are hurting us in the Muslim world.
You really need to open up your eyes. Obama might make a good secretary of health and human services, or transportation, but he is not ready at all for the global stage. If that is not obvious by now you have the blinders on.
Poster 4,
In my experience, most people who hate illegal immigrants are just plain racist. I truly doubt Tancredo is going to win any humanitarian awards in the future.
If all Mexicans spoke English and were white and blond, Tancredo and his racist friends would invite them in with open arms – and you know it.
Art,
“I disagree. But the link to the article is embedded in my post. Readers can read the article for themselves and make up their own minds.”
You’re not REALLY naive enough to think that everyone is going to take the time to do that, are you?
And so the damage you’ve done remains. But then that’s the goal, right? Some people will see past it, but enough will read what you’ve written and believe those are quotes from Obama.
But back to his position on Pakistan. The fact is, the current administration has been far too lenient with Musharraf. We’ve sat back and watched as he placated the tribal elders and warlords in the border regions. Now the Taliban and Al Qaeda is using those areas as staging grounds for attacks in Afghanistan. Some believe that area is basically “Al Qaeda Central” now. Obama’s position of (and I paraphrase here) “if you don’t do something about these people, we will” is something the Pakistanis need to hear.
N2justice,
That is the problem with some liberals – you think people are too stupid to think for themselves. I trust my readers to figure out my post.
Pakistan is in hot water because we let Al Qaeda leaders slip out of Afghanistan while we took the eye off the ball and invaded Iraq. Musharraf needs our support not backstabbing by opportunistic lame Democrats like Obama and Clinton.
Art,
Whether or not people take the time to dig deeper into the misleading nature of the second paragraph of your post has nothing to do with relative intelligence. It’s just a plain fact that not everyone is going to do that. But hey, at least I’ve highlighted the problem…God knows YOU would never rewrite it or post an update.
Musharraf has had plenty of our support. And the events you mention happened several years ago. Now, the dynamics on the ground have changed. We can continue to support Musharraf with our overall strategy…but it ain’t gonna hurt to lean on him with regard to the deteriorating border regions.
as usual play the race card when you got NOTHING . your racist . your racist . that word has no meaning any more its used so often when you dont agree with a certain isue that it takes the effect when it really happens . why cant they follow the law and enter the country the LEGAL WAY ..
A more productive way to examine the question of prejudice is to look at the Culture that Mexicans bring to this country. Disregard for the law, a “family” oriented social structure, machismo, the booming narco traficante music scene- all point to the fact that ppl are not anti- immigrant, they are anti-Mexican-for good reason.
Edwards will create a “Marshall Corps” …. stabilization and humanitarian missions in weak and failing states. States? as in the United States?
He can’t be for invading other countries at the drop of a hat, isn’t he for getting out of Iraq?
Art – “He sounds fairly reasonable,” you are kidding right?
Maybe we can draft Bush #1 to serve his second term now. What is Liz Dole doing now?