He is against the wrong war in Iraq. By the way I wonder what O'Hanlon and the rest of think about the Sunni's quitting the government. How is that progress again?

I am loving watching B. Saddam Obama show his idiocy. So early also. You can bet Hillary is smiling and thinking, "See I told you." ww

I'm not particularly a fan of Obama but it's nice to read that someone is willing to try and clean up what Bush failed to do in tora Bora.

Lemme get this straight.

He opposed the invasion of a hostile country to depose a hostile leader, and supports pulling out prematurely because the new government isn't moving "fast enough."

Yet he will unilaterally invade an ALLIED country which will almost assuradely lead to the deposing of allied (and friendly) leader... because the current government isn't moving "fast enough"!?!?!?!

It's bizarro world. Up is down, down is up, and the Democratic foreign policy actually makes sense. (/sarcasm)

I love you JFO, you never lose the faith, when faced with unthinkable stupidity from the left, you answer with more stupidity... I respect that on some level.

Paul, thankks for the response. I must have told a truth you didn't like. Glad to help.

"truth you didn't like" mascarading as innane gibberish/useless tripe, if you ask me.

Not only an ally, a nuclear powered ally.

So, the Lefties support invading Pakistan, a known nuclear power?

Yes or no?

They where for the war after they where against the war.

Lets see, we're coming up on 6 years after 9/11. How about you folks from the right tell us what Bush has done to deal with OBL and then tell us what you would do. How has he dealt with the thousands of AQ in Pakistan? What would you do?

I'll be interested in your answers.

Instead of being snarky, maybe everyone should begin to force Senator Obama to follow the procedures that they say that President Bush did not follow:

1. Will we go in without United Nations Approval?

2. Would Obama go to Congress and get advice and consent before starting the operation.

3. What is the goal/mission statement? How is success defined?

4. How is failure defined and what level of failure will cause the U.S. to withdraw?

5. Will the children of Democrats join the military to support this? How will the Obama Administration avoid the phrase chickenhawk.

6. If military leaders say that it is beyond the current capability of the U.S. military, will he listen to them?

7. What domestic initiatives would the Obama adminsitration give up to invade Pakistan?

adding to superdestroyers...

8. Assuming we start, Jan. 19th 2009, what's the date we'll give up in Pakistan ?

(Some) good questions superdestroyer and ones he should be required to answer (some) of them.

I suspect that if President Bush had sent a force into Pakistan to go after bin Laden, the screams of protest from the left, including Obama, would have been loud and continuous.

Democrats are always in favor of any war other than the one that is currently being fought.

They nuke Baltimore and he's gonna make sure ambulances show up. Now this??

How about invading London, lots of radical Islams there too!

So, the Lefties support invading Pakistan, a known nuclear power?

Yes or no?

9. Posted by Les Nessman | August 1, 2007 9:43 AM |

Perhaps I should reword that to be more inclusive:

So, usual Wizbang trolls (two who have already commented, the first of which tried to change the subject, as usual), do you support invading Pakistan?
Yes or no?

This comment from Obama shows that the Democrats are the silly party. JFO's pathetic attempt to justify it shows his basic lack of seriousness as well.

Democrats' policies are just "I'll do the opposite of Bush". Its the kind of campaign I'd expect for junior high school President.

Thanks, JFO, for proving that it's not the war itself in Iraq that you lefties hate, but the President who launched it.

Your double-standard, and Obama's, couldn't be clearer.

Thanks again for making it worth getting out of bed this morning.

Well, JFO, let's see.

To "fix" the OBL problem isn't really adressing the TRUE problem.

The TRUE problem is Islamofascism. OBL just happens to be a prominent symptom. And the ONLY time you deal with a symptom before dealing with the underlying problem is when the consequences of "ignoring" the symptom while dealing with the problem doesn't put you in a place you don't want to be.

Initially, on 9/12, the symptom couldn't be ignored, so we invaded Afghanistan and destroyed the power base and support structure OBL aready had in place. Thus somewhat marginalizing OBL while going about dealing with the REAL problem.

Ask any doctor, or equipment/plant operator what method they use when dealing with various issues. I can guarantee, in the nuclear industry anyway, that we stabilize the symptom, then find and deal with the REAL problem.

If you don't do it that way, you're not ever really solving the problem. You're just kicking the issue down the road for someone else to deal with.

So I think that, ON THIS ONE ISSUE, GWB has done a fine job. I have problems with many of his other decisions and policies. But this one... he's got it right.

As for Barak Obama? I guarantee I put more thought into choosing what cereal to eat this morning than he put into that foreign policy declaration.

It appears that all or almost all of the rightie posters prefer to let al Qaeda train, flourish and launch attacks against the West from their safe haven in Pakistan while the normal majority wants to act.

So Barney is ready to attack Iran now. Or it is the same liberal double-speak: tough on Pakistini gov which is more friendly to us, but soft on the radical Mullahs in Teheran. We know that the liberals are honest when they are ready to attack Iran. I am waiting for an example of liberal honesty just for once.

Good morning CCG. Anything of substance to offer? Or just playing the usual BDS card?

Any suggestions about what to do about OBL or the thousnads of AQ in Pakistan?

BG2000 supports invading Pakistan. Nice. He actually wants a nuclear war.

Hey, Barney... where is al-Qaeda currently most active?

In Iraq.

So you say we should abandon the area where al-Qaeda is currently working--in other words, let them win--and invade a sovereign ally with even less justification than we had for the invasion of Iraq (who had broken the cease-fire agreement from 1991 numerous times)?

It appears that the lefties prefer to let al-Qaeda win and boost their morale with the claim "we drove America out of Iraq!"

You know what Barney?

As effective as OBL has been at launching his signature style attacks in the past (almost) 6 years, I'd say he's fairly marginalized.

Now, if there were reeeeeeeeeeeeeally good actionable intel that he's going to be at the local falafel stand on the corner of 5th and P, in Tora Bora at 1:30 AM on the 5th of September, we (the general public) would NEVER hear about who was sent in to deal with him (nor should we). THAT is how you should deal with the OBL problem.

You don't go swatting that particular fly with the sledgehammer of the US military by invading an ALLIED country.

Besides, you lefties think the US is an international parriah NOW. Just sit and think on how much the world would like us then.

JFO, given that we haven't seen a video of OBL that wasn't a rerun for quite some time, I'd say he's assumed room temperature by now, probably buried in some cave by a bunker-buster.

And if you wanna invade every country where there's terrorist training camps, how about invading Iran and Syria, too?

Basically, as I pointed out above, you lefties want to invade a sovereign ally with so little justification that it would rival Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

In short, you're trying to prove that you're not a bunch of cowardly surrender weasels by proposing and promoting an invasion plan that will never happen.

Really classy, JFO. Just your style.

When Bush said (OBL) "Wanted, dead or alive", we all thought he meant captured, dead or alive, but no he meant wanted in prefered as in he would be perfectly happy if OBL is dead or alive.

Bush must be pretty happy right now.

Any suggestions about what to do about OBL or the thousnads of AQ in Pakistan?
-------------------------------------
How about attacking Iran to send a message to the radical Islamists in Pakistan who want to topple the Musharaf gov? Or the lefties want to install another radical Islamist gov in Pakistan?

When Bush said (OBL) "Wanted, dead or alive", we all thought he meant captured, dead or alive, but no he meant wanted in prefered as in he would be perfectly happy if OBL is dead or alive.
------------------------------------
Where is OBL now? Have he shown up anywhere yet? So liberals want to pursue the rat OBL while running from AlQ in Iraq?

Are you ready to attack Iran now, Barney? Adj showed up on TV calling for annihilation of Is while OBJ holed up somewhere and you don't want to deal with Adj of Iran?

"Now, if there were reeeeeeeeeeeeeally good actionable intel that he's going to be at the local falafel" exsub

You mean like this:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/rumsfeld-stopped-raid-on-al-qaeda.html

In Sunday's New York Times, Mark Mazzetti has a fascinating article about a failed effort by the U.S. to nail al-Zawahri. The Al Qaeda leader could have been killed or captured in 2005 but Rumsfeld called off the mission so he wouldn't piss off Pakistan (the country that has harbored Bin Laden and his top allies since 2001):

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group's operations.

"Cowardly surrender weasels..." from ccg. Nice. It only took you about 45 minutes to start the name calling.

>Or just playing the usual BDS card?

But BDS is exactly what this is.... And you'll guilty of it.

We both know if Bush said we wanted to invade Pak, you'd be screaming IMPEACHMENT at the top of your lungs...

But a Dem has this absolutely stupid idea so you and babble2000 defend it... You're partisan hacks of the worst kind. You'll sign off on anything ---no matter your core values--- as long as it goes against republicans.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by that?

"Cowardly surrender weasels..." from ccg. Nice. It only took you about 45 minutes to start the name calling.
-------------------------------------
JFO cannot stop being a hypocrite and a liar just for once. JFO started the name calling first, then turned around and accused CCG of name calling.

JFO asks:

"Any suggestions about what to do about OBL or the thousnads of AQ in Pakistan?"

===============

So ummm... at the you DON'T want us fighting the thousands of AQ in Iraq but you DO want us to invade Pakistan to fight them there.

Yeah, you're making lots of sense JFO.

Even the less than honest NYT had this to say
Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

So again liberals are only concerned about the lives of US soldiers when they can attack Bush. Again, the left is gung-ho for attacking Pakistan now, so we all should be behind an attack on Iran if it comes.