Barack Obama: Let’s Invade Pakistan
August 1, 2007
That’s what he seems to be saying.
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
Musharraf won’t allow U.S. troops into Pakistan, so an invasion is the only way to get them in there. I have even less experience in matter of foreign affairs than Obama does and even I realize that going into Pakistan would be bad. Musharraf is holding onto power, and his life, by the thinest of threads as it is. We go in, he’s killed and someone very undesirable gets their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. If Obama thinks Iraq is bad, wait until al-Qaeda has nukes. Now think about that. If this scenario occurs, and it very well could, do we really want someone in the White House with absolutely zero experience? I don’t. I want someone who knows what he’s doing, not someone who’s been an armchair quarterback for seven years. In today’s world of psychotic Jihadists , Barack Obama is the absolute worst choice for president.
:UPDATE:
Obama recently hinted to the AP that he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against al-Qaeda under any circumstances. Sounds good. In theory. But, as president, you can’t take any option of the table.
Posted in Christopher Lee, Democrats, In The News, Iraq, Politics, War On Terror
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
August 1st, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Obama could also be referring to bombing high value targets – a more likely scenario than actually sending in troops. This is a very remote area that Musharraf is unable to control. How would you suggest we take out al-Qaeda’s training camps and stop the Taliban from using this as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan?
As for experience, I don’t believe George W. Bush had any more experience before taking office than Barack Obama does now. Since Rudy is your guy, please explain what kind of experience he has?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 am
I don’ think there is a “right” answer on what to do about al-Qaeda’s training camps. No matter what we do the repercussions will be bad. We attack and the scenario I layed out could happen. We do nothing and they build and plan and then attack. I’m not knocking his suggestion. If we have to send forces into Pakistan, then we have to. I’m just hoping that Obama realized that Musharraf may be the only thing keeping al-Qaeda from nuclear weapons.
Bush had a little more experience for the White House than Obama does. He was a two term governor of the second largest state in the country that also happened to be a border state. And Rudy was the mayor of the largest city in the country, and one of the most important in the world. A city that was attacked, so he’s dealt first hand with terrorism and what should be done. Obama’s been in Congress for just over two years and he thinks he ready for the most important job in the world?
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
A Barack Obama supporter writes:
“I read this in a comment on YouTube.
Read this:
You want to INVADE PAKISTAN?
FINE you just lost 1,457 VOTES AND COUNTING. (survey on myspace profile).
You can solve things with out killing.
If you are gonna INVADE PAKISTAN you are just
as bad as them.
THINK ABOUT IT.
WE NEED PEACE.
MAKE FRIENDS WITH COUNTRIES AND BE NICE TO THEM.”
No it’s NOT a mistake! Their are more people who AGREE with Barack Obama than disagree. Their are some in this world who think we should NEVER go to war under ANY circumstance, which is impossible. We shouldn’t START wars like George W. Bush did, but we have EVERY RIGHT to protect ourselves and to do what is RIGHT and to do what we can to NOT allow Al Qaeda to attack us AGAIN, here is what Barack Obama said to clarify his statement and it makes PERFECT sense to me:
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “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 (of Pakistan) Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
and for all “we” know, Hillary’s camp or some other group who obviously oppose Barack Obama, started this…
Because ANYONE who REALLY knows and understands Barack Obama, “Knows” he would NOT take the same course as our current President did, he will NOT start an unjust war for unjust, dishonest and unclear reasons. ANY President who takes over after this one is “finally” gone, will have a “huge burden” to bear, but Barack Obama is the ONLY President who is capable of fighting terrorism without actually BECOMING a terrorist.
It’s obvious that the people from this “You Tube” group had no “real intention” on voting for Barack Obama to begin with. We don’t want those type of people behind this movement anyways. We want people who believe in the Audacity of Hope, who believe that sometimes we have to “fight” for freedom and it doesn’t always come easy. We want people who fully understand and believe that unlike George W. Bush…..Barack Obama WILL NOT start an ill conceived war…He will fight to keep us SAFE from terrorists, not go out of his way to cause even “more” hate for America, like George W. Bush has…He will bring countries together and make it clear as he has to the President of Pakistan, that we will NOT allow terrorism to define who we are…We will not allow terrorism, to turn “us” into terrorists. Many dictators are “bullies” who thrive on using scare tactics and torture to keep their “own” people and opposing Nations fearful…With George W. Bush as President, we “are” such a Nation. Many, many countries are starting to believe that America has become a dictatorship, because if you look at some of the facts of our current Adminstration’s actions, we have taken on some of the characteristics of one. Saddam Hussien was a dictator, but how is George W. Bush so different? He refuses to work with Congress, starts a war with a country who had NOTHING to do with the “reason” he gives for starting the war, he calls ALL who oppose him terrorists (Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” -George W. Bush, Sept. 20, 2001 in an address to a joint session of Congress and the nation) Really Mr. Bush? If we don’t believe invading Iraq to be the correct decision in response to Osama Bin Laden (who is in Afghanistan) planning and suceeding to attack Americans, than we are with those who killed fellow Americans? That sounds like another dictator I know, who also used words like “protect” and “freedom”
Barack Obama is the “right” choice for America. If you don’t believe me…research for yourself…We can “not” allow another President to operate as a dictator. We “must” have a leader who represents inclusion… Who represents honesty and integrity…. One who fights to “prevent” terrorism, instead of “causing” it.
“We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force. In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies; movements that continue today. This doesn’t mean abandoning our values and ideals; wherever we can, it’s in our interest to help foster democracy through the diplomatic and economic resources at our disposal. But even as we provide such help, we should be clear that the institutions of democracy – free markets, a free press, a strong civil society – cannot be built overnight, and they cannot be built at the end of a barrel of a gun.”
~Barack Obama
By:
Sarah I. Robinson
Barack Obama Supporter
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. Shame on Obama and shame on Americans who support his views of invading Pakistan. Osama did not plan 9/11, he approved it. The planner of 9/11 was Khalid Sheikh. He is sitting in Guantanamo. How did he end up there? The Pakistanis captured him, handed him over to their Allies so he could be brought to justice for his crimes. Pakistan lost soldiers and lives in its hunt for Khalid and his likes. And for all the sacrifices and efforts a grateful American politician shows his appreciation by threatening to invade the same very ally who captured the mastermind of 9/11. Just pathetic. I am afraid that if, with leaders like Obama, Democrats manage to win the elections on the issue of Iraq, they would create a greater mess.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Presidential Candidate/Senator Osama Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) is willing to picnic with Dictators, Thugs, and Terrorists and has made a public announcment that he will NOT use the Nuclear option in the event of a catostrophic Islamic Terrorist attack against the United States by saying, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance.†but is willing to launch an invasion against the Islamic nation of Pakistan, minus of course the nukes. Just whose side is this clown on anyways?
It has become apparent that B. Hussein Obama’s lack of leadership experience or even potential is sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb, showing he would be better off filling the role of a typical incompetent supervisor with the Transportation Security Administration then that of Legislator or President of the United States of America.
Republican candidate Tom Tancredo has the best idea yet that I have heard any politician say publicly, that the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Republican candidate Tom Tancredo has the best idea yet that I have heard any politician say publicly, that the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
In my opinion, with the possibility of attacks by Hamas and other factions of the Palestinian squatters in the region, we should include the possible destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem in retaliation for ANY attacks sponsored by them against the United States. It’s obvious by their lack of respect for human life, but deep reverence for so called “Holy Cities†and objects like the Koran that this type of retaliation would hurt them more and serve more as a deterence then threats of military action against their Army of Martyrs. (Suicide Bombers)