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.

Who here actually thinks Bin Laden is alive in more than a comatose or near comatose state, if at all?

So we will cause the toppling of the current semi-friendly Pakistan government with nukes to a Taliban State with nukes over a dead body?

Brilliant.

I am sooooo bookmarking this thread. Babble2000 and JFO both support invading an ally as part of the war on terror.

This will come in handy later.

Oh and another question for Sen. Obama:

(N+1) The left has repeated claimed that we're simply creating more terrorists by engaging the enemy where they're located, how's invading Pakistan going to be different ? Or does Sen. Obama disagree with the left's premise (that our military action creates more terrorists) ?

"I am sooooo bookmarking this thread. Babble2000 and JFO both support invading an ally as part of the war on terror."

Paul's definition of an ally is someone that allows al Qaeda a sanctuary to grow and plan attacks against the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/washington/17cnd-terror.html?ex=1186113600&en=ccaa0e1e135da219&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, July 17-- President Bush's top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged today that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.

Paul, what ever happened to "You're either with us or with the terrorists" (Bush)?

Oh Paul, where did I say I supported it? I said it's nice to see that someone is trying to clean up after Bush. Do I support invading Pakistan? I don't know. It depends on what, how, when and who. I said that superdestroyer raised some good questions that would have to be answered.

Paul, even you know the threat is AQ all over the freaking world. Nicely grown and recruited by Bush's follies. But hey, the hell with the head of the snake I guess. the hell with the guy behind it all. Makes no difference to you folks I guess.

It will be years after Bush's term that whoever succeeds him will be cleaning up his messes, including OBL and AQ in Pakistan.

From Barney 's source itself, the less than honest NYT, we should probably attack Iran soon. Again, looks like liberals are inclined to attack gov semi-friendly to the US while running from the enemies of America.

Besides the discussion of Al Qaeda, the report cited the possibility that the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah, a Shiite organization, might be more inclined to strike at the United States should the group come to believe that the United States posed a direct threat either to the group or the government of Iran, its primary benefactor.

Oh Paul, where did I say I supported it? I said it's nice to see that someone is trying to clean up after Bush. Do I support invading Pakistan? I don't know. It depends on what, how, when and who. I said that superdestroyer raised some good questions that would have to be answered.
-------------------------------------
No specific proposal. Just cheap talk as usual. JFO asks for specific proposal while supporting silly talk by Obama. Just the usual hypocritical JFO.

Obama's boat gets tossed so far in the waves, he must have a veritable case of mal de mer. This is, after all, the same guy who has said that there is no reason to use the military, genocide and terrorism not being sufficient reason to intervene or invade. And now he wants us to believe he has (to borrow a quote from the equally pin-headed Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich) the "testicular fortitude" to invade Pakistan???????

And he thinks Iraq is a quagmire?

I've long thought that a lot of the people advising Obama are idiots, empty of anything except domestic political 'street smarts', and this latest foray into foreign policy proves it.

Why should every presidential candidate be measured against the Bush administration's debacle in Iraq? We've done surgical strikes for years--it was Bush who turned Iraq into an utter disaster. I hardly think we do ourselves any favors by assuming getting the people who did this to us on 9/11 is somehow a bad thing.

Every candidate should be measured by how they plan to finish the war that Bush abandoned. Obama is leading the pack in a big way.

The common refrain of criticism of the Bush administration was that it did not use diplomacy enough. We've even heard how invading Iraq drove the Iraqis into terrorism. Now we have silly comments from Obama and the troll crowd here that our ally Pakistan should be invaded.

Unbelievable idiocy. The Bush administration's hard work has created a period of peace between Pakistan and India and moderated the threat of regional nuclear war that Pakistan's nuclear program threatened. The Bush administration is actually applying the nuanced diplomacy that its critics pretended it wasn't. The reality is that we are getting more cooperation in opposing Al Queda with a weak Musharref government than we would with a invaded, hostile, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

JFO, Barney, Mary and the rest just demonstrate a complete juvenile attitude of trying to upset the applecart regardless of how stupid the proposals are. Obama is demonstrating a reckless and destructive stupidity that shows a complete incompetence and disqualification for any office at all.

Any hope of an adult Democratic party is fading fast.

This looks like Baracks "Howard Dean moment" to me. Just like Bidens "He speaks well for a brothah" or some such thing.

See ya Barack!

Have the trolls figured out a way to game the voting system? For some reason comments by our hosts are getting slammed and the worthless tripe by the traitor brigade is getting high positives. I used to enjoy filtering out the poo-flinger comments, now they are all I see unless I reset my threshold.

Obama never said he would invade the country. He said he would have let go foward the targeted strike of Al-Qaeda that Bush aborted and let bin Laden go free. There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Furthermore, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response. This is obviously an implicit attack on the Clintons, as the Clintons refused to take out Osama by missile when they had him in their crosshairs because Sandy Berger suspected they lacked proper authorization. Playing up the invasion spin just misses the point.

So if that "actionable intelligence" is proven not to be so actionable or intelligent (before the invasion or five whole minutes after) and OBL is NOT immediately uncovered as a result of invading Pakistan, will the chants of "OBAMA LIED" be audible?

Furthermore, what does Obama know that no one else seems to know for sure in regards to OBL's whereabouts?

AND...this:
"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005."

Is he talking about this? And if not, why not?

"You people are illiterate", your nickname best describes yourself. The AP story quotes Obama as saying he would put troops in Pakistan. Not merely use airstrikes.

Or are you saying that the AP writes false stories?

Um, "You people are illiterate":

What part of this are you proposing he didn't say?

"...or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion..."

"Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

>Oh Paul, where did I say I supported it?

And suddenly JFO backtracks when he learned this will be bookmarked for later.

Nice.

Barry Obama can avoid fallout from future foreign policy/defense faux pas by promising, if elected as President, to appoint someone who has a clue as his Chief of Staff.

That way when he stubs his toe like he did over the debate question on meeting with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinnerjacket, et al., his adviser can immediately whisper in his ear and not have to until later retraction/clarification backstage.

Maybe Hillary will volunteer.

I love the current plan in Iraq. Leave the terrorists entrance gate open and close all exits, other than for those wrapped in bloody white rags. It's working almost 100%, thousands of terrorists that would be in the U.S. and other countries are flooding into Iraq to lose their heads to a flying bullet. We've got them surrounded, they just don't know it. Draw them in and kill them, 'No' major attacks on America or American interest in almost six years. Can't say that for any six years prior to 'taking' the fight to them. The only thing the dhimmi's have left is BDS, UBL (dead or confined to a cave), and recurring nightmares like Osama Obama and Shrillary.

Nothing like the smell of a little JFO ass kicking in the morning. I think he's going for a record this week.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.....

Paul, whats up with the rating system? It is highjacked. Get rid of it if it can be manipulated.

JFO wouldn't know a consistant plan if it bit him. Notice he always gives a quiz and then challenges everyone to answer it repeatedly to take us off topic? Some of you fall for it all the time. My advice, just ignore him.

I do not think Obama, er, Osama is alive at all.

Isn't it incredible that the lefties think Al Queda was everywhere but Iraq? Amazes the logical mind. Oh yeah. Islamofacist hated us so much they want us all dead, but since we entered Iraq, the lefties think they REALLY want us dead. Makes no sense. ww

The libs here call Iraq the "wrong war" and say that Afghanistan is where we should be. If Bush had not gone into Iraq and stayed only in Afghanistan does anyone here think they would be supporting Bush in that, the right war? If so I have a special deal on a bridge for sale.

Jo says

"Nothing like the smell of a little JFO ass kicking in the morning"

If you're smelling ass, it's because you need to clean your upper lip.

You know, it's kinda sad really to read the likes Jo et al. More interested in JFO getting my ass kicked than all the tens of thousands of dead and maimed and finding some kind of solution to that. Jo, you'd rather wallow in those deaths and maiming at any cost to anyone anywhere for the sake of "victory". Keep on crowing over my ass whipping as those folks keep dying - so Bush can have a "victory." A "victory" which he can't even define because it changes so often.

>Paul, whats up with the rating system? It is highjacked. Get rid of it if it can be manipulated.

huh? details please. (I'm looking)

OK I started from the top, now I see it... No worries WW.

We've seen it a few times... The liberal trolls realize they can't defend their position so they keep their mouths shut (well most of them ;-) but get pissy and vote everyone negative.

Like a child whining, that's all. They give up soon enough because it is too much like work.

We had it happen on the front page a few weeks ago. It lasted like 3-4 days. Bitter wittle wiberals, that's all.

Hey, guys, does this look familiar?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/08/obama_might_send_troops_into_pakistan_/#comment-140616

Maybe the exact same comment as this one?
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/08/01/obama-ill-invade-pakistan.php#comment-625234

Talking point or roving troll? I'm betting it's the latter.

By the way, capitano, "Ahmadinnerjacket" had me rollin on the floor. Thanks.

More interested in JFO getting my ass kicked than all the tens of thousands of dead and maimed and finding some kind of solution to that.
------------------------------------Still more cheap talk, no specific proposals from JFO. Usual hypocritical JFO. Are you for withdrawal from Iraq JFO even millions will probably be killed in a genocide? Are the democrats despicable for their defeatist rhetoric every time the terrorists blowing up more women/children in Iraq?

For the "victory at any cost" folks here's the latest from the newly nominated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. So keep on wanting to fight until we "win." Too bad that's not necessarily the plan of the military - unless of course it happens ny next April. And we all know just how well the political solution is going. They just love each other - to death.

Joint Chiefs Nominee Notes Toll on Military, Need to Plan for Iraq Drawdown
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; Page A02

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday that the war in Iraq is taking a heavy toll on the U.S. military, warning that American forces are "not unbreakable" and stressing the need to "plan for an eventual drawdown" of troops.

Appearing in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mullen, 60, acknowledged that the increase in U.S. forces cannot continue past April 2008 under the military's current force structure. He also cautioned that Iraqi political reconciliation is not keeping pace with security improvements.

"There is no purely military solution in Iraq," said Adm. Michael Mullen, tapped to lead Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the "breathing space" that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

Ya got that backward JFO that's not for the "victory at any cost" folks... that's for "we're cheering the thought America might lose" folks.

For the "victory at any cost" folks
-------------------------------------
For the "defeat at any cost" folks like JFO, just look at what kind of party you guys are supporting. Yikes! Victory for the US is bad news for liberal dems.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_073107/content/01125107.guest.html
Democrats in Iraq Crisis: What Kind of Politicians Are They?

BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September, and says, "This is working very, very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it"?

CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.

While in office, Democrats have historically been just as likely as Republicans to use military force abroad as witnessed in WWI, WWII and Vietnam for example. So nothing in the statement of Obama seems out of character in that historic context.

For the large part of the 90's and into 2003,we heard
things like this from democrats:

Saddam was an immanent threat to the US and the
Middle East.

Saddam possessed WMD's.

Saddam had ties with terrorist groups including
Al-Qaeda.

Saddam had a nuclear program.

Saddam was making a mockery of the UN sanctions.

Bill Clinton,Hillary Clinton,John Kerry,Harry Reid,and the rest of the heroes to the left told America over and over and over how dangerous Saddam was, made regime change American policy and finally voted to go to war to take Saddam out.

As soon as the going got tough in Iraq and the polls
reflected discontent with the war,you damn liberals
started with "Bush lied","Bush did 9/11","no more
blood for oil",and all the other really intelligent
chants against this administration.

Why would anybody with an IQ higher than Ted Kennedy's blood alcohol level trust a democrat to wage any military assault or war.

liberals have printed our secrets,told our enemies that we have lost the war while we have Soldiers on the
battlefield,and used every difficulty of war as a
bat to bludgeon President Bush and anyone who supports
the War on Terror.
liberals want to surrender to our enemies in Iraq,probably resulting in mass genocide and leading to
all out war in the middle east to send troops into a
country that has not attacked America.
Please let me repeat: Pakistan has not attacked America.Remember all you liberals constantly crying
"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"
"Iraq is a sovereign nation"
"The War on Terror is just a bumper sticker"
Pakistan has an army of over 35 million,nuclear weapons
and a population of over 130 million people.
The country is one assassination away from possible
civil war and the taliban controlling a nuclear country.
America has been told that a presence of troops would
lead to war in this country.
liberals say we can't lose another Soldier and we have lost the war in Iraq because we can't clean up the
remaining 40% of Baghdad.
But we can take on Pakistan with our "Broken Army".

Listening to liberals justify surrender in Iraq to
invade Pakistan leaves no doubt that liberalism is
nothing but a bunch of narcissistic idiots in one
big coffee shop circle jerk.

This is why liberals have to constantly tell everybody how smart they are,because it doesn't show.

nothing in the statement of Obama seems out of character in that historic context.
------------------------------------
except for the blatant hypocrisy of withdrawing troops from Iraq to invade Pakistan. This is silly at best.

I have a theory about the Dem's actions and words about the GWOT, and especially the War in Iraq.

Obviously at one point, they did support the war. Obama's words betray the fact that despite their wranglings, and the non-stop barrage on Republican's support, that they do in-fact realize how important this fight is.

Based on their actions, I would consider the notion that they do want us to win, but just not under this president.

It would be a brilliant political strategy to keep Iraq in play until after 2008 (assuming they take the WH), then wrap the war (in Iraq) up successfully, and then claim that the only reason that Bush didn't do it was incompetence, and that they were indeed the "right men for the job" from the beginning.

Obama's words seem shocking - unless you consider that's the strategy. It would rely on our enemy in Iraq believing that if they just held on long enough, that they would be successful. (Which is what the press and Congress have been telegraphing to Iraq on an almost daily basis).

I think the lesson in history is that few people remember who started a war - but everybody remembers who was there when the war was won.

Truly, the surge being successful would run a tremendous risk of spoiling the dem's plans (assuming I'm right).

This just released from the Offices of Senator Kennedy:

"Osamer Obamer is a bomber of Osamer (hiccup), er, one Osama, two Osama, three Osama four - hike! Oops, sorry. I say, let's invade Okinawer and call the whole thing off."

"You say potato, and I say potato,
You say tomato, and I say tomato...(hiccup)."

That's all folks.

Kos has said nothing about this. Nice to see them all scratching their heads over their boy!

RR, if you would bother to read his speech you would know that Obama never said that he would put troops in Pakistan. Here is what he said:

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "

And this:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. "

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

Why doesn't a reporter ask Obama where Osama is? I mean, he obvioudly knows. Sheesh. And the lefties like this guy? ww

Barney, your practice of selective quotation and ignoring passages in the very same citation has already been noted.

"You people are illiterate" posted the exact same text in a score of blogs. It is just as false repeated as it was the first time. Just as with your claims, Barney.

Robin,
Barney basically pointed out that AP misrepresented what Barack said. I wonder why Barack would bother to pre-release his statement to AP.

Here is the link from AP. So basically liberals like Barney agreed that AP lied again?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7

Obama might send troops into Pakistan By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Wed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

Oops, ABC also lies about Obama 's statement according to Barney. These liberal news outlets have a tendency to exaggerate

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1
In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan -- with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

lovie, I don't give sh*t what AP or ABC said about what Obama said. I have a transcript of the speech, and I know what he said. He never said stationed or invasion of troops into Pakistan. He said he would take action if Pakistan does not.

Why are you always protecting al Qaeda? What country are you from? I always thought you jumped on a boat and bravely ran away, like Sir Robin, from the fight of taking your country back from the commies, but maybe you are from Pakistan or Afghanistan?

You know, I read most of Barack's speech, and caught all the pertinent parts about what to do with Pakistan.

Now, Barney and all you other trolls may choose to concentrate on all the red meat of "wrong war, wrong theatre of ops, rush to war in Iraq, etc..." it wasn't ALL liberal talking points.

He most certainly DID say that if there was actionable intel about OBL or other AQ in Pakistan, and Pakistan does nothing after recieving the intel... then the US would take action.

Taking military action within the boundaries of another country without the permission of said country. That's just about the definition of "Invade."

Have the intellectual honesty to admit Barack Obama made a slip. He actually did hint at invading Pakistan.

All of the statements in the AP article are fair inferences from the text of the speech. Barney loves to selectively quote and ignore inconvenient parts of the cited article, its not the first time we've seen him do it.

This silly speech only strengthens Hillary's point about Obama not being competent. First time I've agreed with her in a long time.

invade |inˈvād| verb [ trans. ] (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it : Iraq's intention to invade Kuwait | [ intrans. ] they would invade at dawn.

Surgical strikes within Pakistan whether with special forces or an air strike is not the same as occupying it.

Now I know why JFO voice (comments) go waaaaay up sometime and other times is waaaay low. He is a fence straddler and moves to fast sometimes.

Wait that can't be right-he doen't have any.

opps-doesn't

The odds are good that Obama campaign made people available to "explain" the speech to AP and other media outlets too. Barney's spin is wishful thinking at best, misrepresentation of the speech at worse, because this really is how silly Obama is.

Now Barney is selectively quoting from a dictionary. Not noting the alternate meanings that every dictionary has, he just picks the one that he likes. This is a perfectly hilarious example of Barney's dishonesty.

From dictionary.com:

in·vade /ɪnˈveɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-veyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -vad·ed, -vad·ing.
-verb (used with object)
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.
-verb (used without object)
9. to make an invasion: troops awaiting the signal to invade.

Barney,
You hpyporcitical stunt and dishonesty are so transparent. Just yesterday, you had the exact words of Brown in a press conference and you tried to post the Toby 's reading of Brown 's mind from the Telegraph. Today just around and speak from the other side of your mouth. So hypocritical. Obama 's speech can be summarized in one sentence: we will improve what Bush has already done.

So are you ready to attack Iran? Are you trying to topple Musharraf to help install another Taliban in Pakistan? Your cheap hypocrisy has been exposed again.

RR, I used the definition that applied to the discussion on hand. Now if we are talking about insects or penetrating something you have a point, but we are talking about invading Pakistan with an army and not insects.

Since you righties think that any kind of strike within a sovereign country is an invasion then why aren't you pissed that Bush has repeatedly allow Iran and Turkey to invade Iraq? It sounds like Bush is limp wristed pansy that wont defend the sovereignty of Iraq

"What country are you from? I always thought you jumped on a boat and bravely ran away, like Sir Robin, from the fight of taking your country back from the commies, but maybe you are from Pakistan or Afghanistan?"
Asshat Barney

This is the most disgusting personal attack I have ever seen here. WAY beyond the pale. Normally I wouldn't call for someones banning, keep your enemies closer and all, but I think with this Barney has proven he doesn't belong here.

Beyond that, aren't the conservatives supposed to be the xenophobic ones, according to the libs?

I think Oyster has given you a link of a surgical strike in Pakistan in 2006 already. So put to rest Obama 's little cheap talk.

BTW, Barney, you are finally for attacking Iran now? They sponsor both AlQ and Hezbollah and attack our troops in Iraq.

Trancredo Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=101389

Barney is true to liberal form: always attack the allies semi-friendly to the US. However, they would cut and run before the real enemies of America. The same in the cold war and the same in the GWOT.

BArney is gung-ho on attacking AMerican allies but absolutely against attacking our enemies. THat 's liberal courage.

"Surgical strikes within Pakistan whether with special forces or an air strike is not the same as occupying it."

No, but it IS the same as invading it.

Barney, read the definition you posted:

"so as to subjugate or occupy it"

Obama as many other liberals is so clueless about foreign policy. We are routinely conducting surgical strikes into Pakistan. But that is sth we keep under the hood. In his little stunt of cheap macho, he tried to publicly embarass our ally. It is so hypocritical. We didn't hear much from Obama when AlQ blew up women/children in Iraq or when Iran was found meddling with us there.

subjugate |ˈsəbjəˌgāt| verb [ trans. ] bring under domination or control, esp. by conquest : the invaders had soon subjugated most of the native population.

We are talking about killing al Qaeda terrorists and not subjugating the Pakistani people. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are non natives, so they do not fall under the definition of subjugation as it relates to invading a country.

Brainy,
I expected that Barney will resort to his cheap ad-hominen attacks when he runs out of arg in any case. What do you expect of him?

LoveAmerican Immigrant Accuses the President of Invading Pakistan!

"We are routinely conducting surgical strikes into Pakistan." lovie

LoveAmerican Immigrant Accuses the President of Invading Pakistan!

"We are routinely conducting surgical strikes into Pakistan."
-------------------------------------
Yup, but Bush is much smarter than liberals like Obama not to make it a public spectacle to humiliate our allies. If Bush is dumb, then the dems are really dumb.

Again, liberals show that either they are clueless about foreign policy and consumed with BDS.

As is my custom in such cases, I consulted my Oracle who has a direct link to Confucius (Don't ask me, I don't know how he does it). This is what he said, for what it is worth:

Pakistan is an ally and Canada is an ally. We have intelligence that AQ is in Pakistan and we have intelligence that AQ is in Canada.

Confucius say invade Canada first, its closer and we can use the trees.

Oops, Barney probably give us his trade-mark of selective quoting again. Directly from Obama website. Barney 's mind reading is wrong again. Obama really wants to have a troop invasion (not just surgical strikes)

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/obama_vows_to_hunt_down_terror.php
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Talk about selective quoting and being dishonest.

Lovie, do you want to provide the direct quote, or just the words of the reporter you quoted?

The word "invasion" was the reporters words and not Obama's.

Pick that up with the Obama people. They featured the article on their website. If it is wrong, why didn't they issue a correct? Not only that, they feature it on their website. I thought you are more honest than that. Again, this is from Obama 's website. Or are you saying that they are clueless?

Obviously, Barney your mind-reading is wrong. Obama 's people give us the meaning of Obama 's speech.

Barney, you've been caught repeatedly in this rather crude game of yours. Have no fear, after this and previous displays, I'll not consider any of your comments as having any credibility in the future. Similarly with any summations by you of cited material.

Completely off-topic warning:

So who is script-kiddying the comment-voting, now?

You people are illiterate says:

"Obama never said he would invade the country."

So he never said it here, either:
"Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists -- even without permission from that country's Government."

Maybe we're all just hallucinating. Hmmmm...

heh babble200 you been freaking owned.

How many times will you make a fool of yourself before yuo realize it's hopeless?

Barney doesn't like it when someone interprets what Obama meant when he said something, even if it's his own people. But when an NRO writer interprets what Bush said in a conference with Brown, well THAT'S a different story. THAT'S okay and it merits reprinting by his own hand.

Obama said he would deploy troops to Pakistan. That is an invasion plain and simple. He did not say he would have them perform surgical military strikes, something which has been done already. As a matter of fact he implies, by omission of at least one instance, that it hasn't been done and he would really, really do it.

Set aside all Barney's disseminating and technicalities in definitions and take note of how conspicuous in its absence is his very own support of such a troop deployment.

I have to admit one thing tho, whether or not Obama's naivete was speaking with this announcement, I'm glad a member of the Democratic Party is indeed talking tough for the goons in the ME to hear.

I'm glad a member of the Democratic Party is indeed talking tough for the goons in the ME to hear.
-------------------------------------
I would have been much better if they talk tough about Iran for example.

Is Pervez Musharraf employee of Department of Defense?