Wednesday, August 01, 2007


Obama would attack Pakistan

Interesting. B. Hussein Obama condemns the Bush administration's mishandling the war by diverting attention in the War on Terror by going into Iraq. HE will find terrorists in Pakistan. Gee, you mean, Mr. Hussein Obama, that there are NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ?

I think Mrs. Bill Clinton is right about Mr. Hussein Obama, he is naive about foreign policy.


At 2:59 PM, Blogger TheGodFearinFiddler said...

Those aren't terrorists in Iraq, those are peace loving oilers just minding their own business until Bush had to come in single handedly (seeing as how we live in a complete dictatorship) and steal the oil (forget the fact that we don't import oil from Iraq).

Next, Bush will invade China to secure our interests in the textile industry (forget the fact that invading a supplier doesn't actually help the supply-side).

At least thats the story you'll get from disgruntled teenagers (oh and adult Democrats).

I wonder if "Bush" invaded Israel... would the left still be so upset? There's some food for thought.....

At 6:59 AM, Anonymous Isabella di Pesto said...

Hi UL,

Haven't been here in a while. Your post caught my eye. I thought you'd like to read that Senator Obama was just agreeing with President Bush who stated almost a year ago that he, Bush, would send troops into Pakistan with or without Musharaff's permission. These things are so easy to google. I've visited some other conservative sites where they've called Obama an idiot for saying what Bush said a year ago.

Why is it stupid for Obama to say it but no one in the conservative camp called Bush stupid or naive for proposing EXACTLY THE SAME THING?

Bush would send troops inside Pakistan to catch bin Laden
POSTED: 1:44 a.m. EDT, September 22, 2006

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

The president made the comments Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. (Watch Bush state his position on Iran and the war on terror -- 18:06)

Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

But Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory.

"We wouldn't like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves," he said.


Can someone answer me?

At 10:27 AM, Anonymous UL said...

Dear Isabella:

Great to have you on board.

I perhaps need to be clear, since I'm rhetorically relying on implication, or an enthymeme.

I guess my issue is a political disconnect from the Iraq War and Pakistan. If we are going after terrorists, (i.e. OBL and co.) there are so many OBL assistants, clones and satelite groups that Iraq does just what Obama is proscribing for Pakistan. If he is so hard charging against terrorists, how come he doesn't come in favor of Iraq like his friend Joe Lieberman?

Secondly, we're walking a foreign policy tightrope with Pakistan, looking for there cooperation in finding Bin Laden. Mussharrif (sp?) is caught between a rock and a hard place with his own constituents. I think Obama's rowdy statements are naive in that he puts us and Musharrif in difficult spot. The fact that you mention about Bush going after terrorists if intel made it certain is a bit unsettling to me.

I'll give Mr. Obama points for wanting to go after terrorists. He gets points subtracted for his duplicity.

All in all, as a Catholic, I am unsettled with this War on Terror in that we are using a doctrine that doesn't fit necessarily with the doctrine of Just War. To say, as Bush does, that we will go into Pakistan with U.S. forces will stir up a hornet's nest. Pakistan would justifiably be angry at us.

At 1:10 AM, Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

UL - I find the way you used Sen. Obama's name a bit distasteful. I won't go as far as calling you a racist for framing his name that way, but it is definitely Limbaughesque, quite trite and beneath your professed level of discourse.

god-guy - "I wonder if "Bush" invaded Israel... would the left still be so upset? There's some food for thought.....

Food? Thought? Hardly...

At 10:39 PM, Anonymous ul said...


I take your statements under advisement. However, "Hussein" is his middle name.

At 6:27 AM, Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I understand that... It is all in the frame...

At 12:10 PM, Anonymous ul said...

Yes, I am aware of that as well.

At 7:58 AM, Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

So.... that frame was your intent?

You might also want to consider your premise is faulty in that the force applied in Iraq to counter al qaeda affiliates is disproportionate to that required there and to that applied in Afghainistan and Pakistan. I haven't heard anyone say they are opposed to the bush admin escalating its war against al qaeda. Unfortunately many on the right have allowed themselves to be conned into believing the main fight in Iraq is against Al qaeda when in fact the military itself says AL Qaeda in Iraq in is fifth on the list of threats and violence there. Most accounts have the number of affiliated al qaeda fighters in Iraq around 4 - 5000 and their violence, while brutal, is negligible compared to that of the Shiite/Sunni civil war.

This administration is using the al qaeda boogieman to convince you that they need to escalted their presence in Iraq. It's a familiar tune and most of America isn't buying it anymore.

At 6:43 PM, Anonymous ul said...

Nah, I'm not there.

At 6:38 AM, Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Oh well...

You can't lead a monkey to a banana raffle.

At 3:29 PM, Anonymous ul said...



Post a Comment

<< Home