posted on August 14, 2007 09:07:58 AM new
No wonder obama is trailing behind clinton.
The more he opens his mouth the more his inexperience becomes clear and the more he shows his own confusion about how to deal with foreign policy - and especially terrorists.
First he wants us out of Iraq.
THEN he would BOMB Pakistan.
Today he blames American troops in Afghanistan for killing civilians.
Brother...he's his own worse enemy.
Guess he doesn't think HIS bombing of Pakistan would kill anyone except the 'bad guys'.
Soon he'll be trailing even further behind hillary.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 14, 2007 01:50:01 PM new
Oh yes, the republicans are making hay with this most recent FUMBLE obama made....as well they should be doing.
It NEEDS to be pointed out EACH time some liberal dem demeans our troops.....bashes them....falsely accuses them of things they don't do. Let American's see how they DON'T really support our troops at all. obama now sounds just like traitor kerry, kennedy etc. tsk tsk tsk
This will set him back even FURTHER. And that's a good thing. Can't have a CIC that thinks this way about our troops.
Such support for our troops. Boy, liberals sure have a WEIRD way of 'showing' support for them.
BUT they TALK a good story about supporting them....until they speak honestly with how the REALLY feel. LOL
--------
Are The Wheels Coming Off For Obama
?
The primary campaign has turned into a very long dance for Barack Obama, who seems determined to prove at every opportunity that he has two left feet. In New Hampshire, Obama told a crowd that the US military effort consists mainly of "air raiding villages and killing civilians" -- which his tone-deaf campaign confirmed moments later to reporters (via The Corner):
Obama defended his push to prosecute a tougher military effort to root out al-Qaida on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which drew criticism from primary rivals for sounding too bellicose.
“Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,’’ Obama said.
Campaign spokesman Reid Cherlin said Obama was not endorsing the current Bush policy, which consists solely of air raids and bombing of civilians.
The NATO troops in Afghanistan would beg to differ. They don't have a policy of bombing civilians, and the ground troops play a very important role in defending Afghanistan's villages from the depravities of Taliban control. Perhaps Obama can explain his analysis of military strategy and tactics to the ground troops that get wounded in these battles -- or to the families of the dead soldiers who died holding ground against the radical Islamists.
In fact, as posited by the Obama campaign, such a strategy would amount to war crimes. This sounds perilously close to the same kind of accusations that Vietnam War veterans faced when they came back from their service -- that they indiscriminately wiped out villages, killing women, children, and babies. And Obama offers this as a defense of his previous pronouncement that he would invade Pakistan as a positive step, presumably as an improvement on indiscriminate attacks on villages in Afghanistan.
Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party. His asinine pronouncements on military affairs and foreign policy now make him look like someone drowning in two feet of water. Besides having a nice voice and a pleasant disposition, the man has nothing to offer. He's an empty suit, a man who doesn't engage his brain before activating his jaw.
Another part of his speech provides an example. He claims that he will settle the Iraq War by having Saudi Arabia and China occupy Iraq. How exactly will the US convince China to send troops to Iraq -- and why would the Iraqis want the Chinese there at all? Why would we want to put Chinese troops in the center of the Middle East, with all of the critical energy interests we have there? And while some Sunni Iraqis might consider Saudi troops as allies, the majority Shi'ites will see it as another Sunni attempt to dominate them. They would almost certainly appeal to Teheran for troops, and the regional war would flash into existence.
Does Obama think before making these statements? Does he think at all? He's not just blowing his chances in this election, but he's making an argument for his long-term exclusion from any position with foreign policy or military issues under his control.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
