Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
I think I heard that McCain threw himself under the bus for being disrespectful to Obama, hee hee.
Seriously, it's about time he stepped up .
Easy John.. Obama will call it an attack if you constatntly prove what afreaking Idiot he is... He'll unleash the one and only attack Bitch Michelle on you!
Joe Klein .. Puhleeze Louize.. he is but a Pandering Liberal MSM type going " GIDDY" along with Oldumberrman on PMSNBC a few times a week..
He has about as much credibility as Oily Clark which translates to ZERO!
Um, Al Quaida is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and before the surge they were NOT in Iraq.....we destabalized it and then some Al Quaida came in...
Our own pentagon said Saddam had NO WMD's and NO ties to Al Quaida
Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam and his sons and democracy should be allowed to follow
The surge is working depending on who you ask....mcCain says its working because his being right on the war gives him talking points and credentials......But the only problem is that we dont have a clear idea of what victory is....do you know? (besides less violence)
But here's one more thing that I hear Obama mention and not McCain....our troops coming home, with dissabilities, lost limbs, mental trauma....things that will devalue their quality of life....he voted for extending the GI benefits to our soilders, McCain thought it was "too generous" and would decline re-elistment by 16% when another study showed it would raise enrollment by 16%
not to mention that 1 out of every 5 women have reported or have been sexually assaulted (raped) or harrassed....that means more are NOT reporting it......these reports dont show up much because it would be an embarassment on our government and armed forces....
To say Obama is more interested in winning an election over the war is FALSE.....put facts against facts....not words or bias in its place
Um, yeah they were there and the translations from Saddam's computers have proven it. Catch up and get some new talking points--you're not credible just from that first inane comment.
Where are they now Miss Beth?
And do you believe everything that's on Saddam's computers??
I believe our military intelligence. If you don't, well, that's on you and shows just where your priorities are with those who defend us as well as our country. Deal with it.
I see.
Do you have any guess where these WMDs are today?
Oregon Obama
Try to get your facts straight... Aq was rtraining in Itaq just like Saddam had Yellow Cake in Iraq which was just moved ( the last 500 tons) to Canada....Try to get it RIGHT and stop imitationg tha Waffle monger that you endorse....WTF Libtards cannot get it anythime at all!!
Again, look to the military intelligence which has found them. I think you need to catch up before showing how far behind the actual news you are--these things have been shown repeatedly in the last six months. Where have you been?
No kidding Red--Angry Dem over in the other thread is being his usual self stating we shouldn't rely on military intelligence, AQ was never there and where are the WMD's--where the hell have these morons been the past 6 months to a year? Partying on koolaid that long?
Anger is generated by the feeling of their ever present state of mental and ethical and moral Inferiority... Keep Hammering the bastards Miss Beth!!
On the WMD issue alone, I have talked to a soldier who has SEEN them. Hmmmmmm...and yes, Canada (Montreal actually) is now the home of the yellow cake....
NEXT!!!
LOL Brat, Love the Next!!!
Miss Beth -
Please, educate me. I guess I've been asleep at the wheel for the past several months. Give me some links to some articles that state WMDs have been located. I would love to read the sources you're getting this info from. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, I can admit to it.
Senator Obama is turning out to be a real disappointment and a very dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan
’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:
Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.
Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).
Pakistan
’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.
The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:
On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-
Qaeda
’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.
On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.
Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid ... the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.
A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”
In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.
The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan
’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?
Can we trust a Strwa man whose mind seems to WONDER on issues which he has spoken about:
1) " Iran poses NO threat to the USA" Next day " I have alswys said that Iran is areal threat ..."" Dementia or Amnesia???
" Isreal is astromg froiend of Israel".. AHH BUT of Course My little MORON!
"My Banking Committee has passed additional severe ..." OH boy oh boy oh boy... Barry you aren't amember of that committee ... See Inexperience and poor scripts will make you look your usaua Narcisstic, elitist CLUELESS SElf after all...
redhawk, we all know that McCain has remained consistent on the issues don't we??
Oh, BTW, was it during an interview with CBS the other day that McCain said the Iraq War was the FIRST major confrontation following 9/11?!?! I guess his dementia must have kicked-in during that interview.
Angy baby... Don't let minutia detract you from the fcats that OBAME is CLUELESS ... if we were to run up the list of gaffes ( innocuous Vs REAL LIES0
Obama lies and Waffles would look like a basketball final score of 123 to 12... with Barry as the Waffler Winnah!
We are sick of the cut and paste bullshit talking idiocy from you morons. Get some new material.
Edited By Siteowner
Commenting by HaloScan
