McCain wins Wisconsin and slams Obama: Includes video link (1 Viewer)

“Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to that question.”

Too bad Obama never said that:

"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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
Obama

and what happened a little while ago?

"In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.
The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews

Sounds a lot like what Obama said, doesn't it?

Obama has said from the very beginning that he wants change but in order to get there he will need to get the help of the American people. He has always stated not to expect to get him in the office and then wait for everything to get better.
McCain has said that he will make us all safer. He is playing up the fear once again, taking a page out of the GWB playbook. He would like us to let him make us safe and watch him drive us into another war and or off another cliff.

No thanks.

As far as talking to other leaders...you're darn right I want to talk with them. What is everyone so afraid of? What has ostracizing them gotten us? Not a thing.
 
“Will the next president have the experience, the judgement, experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals?” McCain asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to that question.”



http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/19/mccain-slams-obama-as-deceptive-inexperienced/

Ummm....

We just bombed Pakistan, per Obama's advice:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197/
 
Suggesting Obama said that we should bomb Pakistan is a major distortion. He said he would authorize U.S. forces to get Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan, even without their support. I would imagine that he and McCain don't differ on that at all, and if they do it will hurt McCain. The straight-talk express is getting a bit derailed.

>>>It has more to do with the Pentagon than the White House.

???
The White House directs the Pentagon as to what they should do. It has everything to do with the White House.
 
Too bad Obama never said that:

"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. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
Obama

and what happened a little while ago?

"In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.
The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid=topnews

Sounds a lot like what Obama said, doesn't it?

Obama has said from the very beginning that he wants change but in order to get there he will need to get the help of the American people. He has always stated not to expect to get him in the office and then wait for everything to get better.
McCain has said that he will make us all safer. He is playing up the fear once again, taking a page out of the GWB playbook. He would like us to let him make us safe and watch him drive us into another war and or off another cliff.

No thanks.

As far as talking to other leaders...you're darn right I want to talk with them. What is everyone so afraid of? What has ostracizing them gotten us? Not a thing.
:plus-un2:

I'm an Obama Republican:mwink:
 
WEll wamland to a point your right, we have to talk to other leaders we may hate or dislike. But the difference is if we talk to them how much do we change them in the process. it has to be a mutual thing you know. We tried to talk North Korea out of abandoning its weapons program for many years and we got nowhere with it and well we know what type of regime they have in that country. If we do talk to these countries, and get their viewpoint, who's to say it will work the way we intended.

You dont want to seem as though you are condoning these countries actions by talking to them? Thats the big hangup. If I go to North Korea or Cuba to talk to X or Y, you have to see that some people will see it somewhere as condoning their actions or sending a message we tolerate them to a great extent.

South Africa and China were opened up the right way IMHO and both were done becuase of careful negotatations.
sure I support talking to countries but I do not condone thinking we will tolerate the thinking that we support their actions all the way in principle. Carter got burned for that in thinking he could play world peace maker and everyone would respond in kind.
He was wrong.
 
We tried to talk North Korea out of abandoning its weapons program for many years and we got nowhere with it and well we know what type of regime they have in that country. If we do talk to these countries, and get their viewpoint, who's to say it will work the way we intended.

I don't think sitting on the other side of the world calling a country a "Axis of Evil" constitutes talking with them or negotiating with them.
Perhaps Colin Powell could have had some pull in negotiations but this administration blew his hand when they screwed him into giving his UN catastrophe. Bush and his crew have zero finesse and skill when it comes to dealing with anyone.
I believe Obama can pull together the people needed to do this and hopefully get to the point where we can meet face to face.

If Bush were in charge in 1962, we would have invaded Cuba and perhaps set off a nuclear war, I feel. He would have been calling Kruschev names from around a corner in the White House instead of picking up a phone and talkiing to him.

" During the crisis, the two sides exchanged many letters and other communications, both formal and "back channel." Khrushchev sent letters to Kennedy on October 23 and 24 indicating the deterrent nature of the missiles in Cuba and the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union. On October 26, Khrushchev sent Kennedy a long rambling letter seemingly proposing that the missile installations would be dismantled and personnel removed in exchange for United States assurances that it or its proxies would not invade Cuba. On October 27, another letter to Kennedy arrived from Khrushchev, suggesting that missile installations in Cuba would be dismantled if the United States dismantled its missile installations in Turkey. The American administration decided to ignore this second letter and to accept the offer outlined in the letter of October 26. Khrushchev then announced on October 28 that he would dismantle the installations and return them to the Soviet Union, expressing his trust that the United States would not invade Cuba. Further negotiations were held to implement the October 28 agreement, including a United States demand that Soviet light bombers also be removed from Cuba, and to specify the exact form and conditions of United States assurances not to invade Cuba."

http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russian/Cold_War__Cuban_Missile_Crisis.html
 
Thats a rash example, wamland. Yes he did make some rash speeches but in terms of North Korea, dude honestly would you trust them to hold their words on its weapons program. I mean you know what type of regime exists in that country? I hope you do becuase if your a practical person would you want to always make deals that the other side will break just as easily as you set them up?

and you did not answer my examples in South Africa and China, those were both done the right way, but we did not give up the farm in doing it. Nixon did his homework and so did Reagan with South Africa to a lesser extent.

Talk to people but also make your intentions known, dont play nice and be as flexible as you can. Some people you jsut cannot talk too. I dont care what the hell some one can say, some nations are deliberatly beigerant and impervious to talking too.

Its just a reality, and not being idealistic. and no I dont support GWB on like everything he has done and realize his massive errors in the past 8 years,so dont lump me in with him or infer that I do becuase I dont.
 
and you did not answer my examples in South Africa and China, those were both done the right way, but we did not give up the farm in doing it. Nixon did his homework and so did Reagan with South Africa to a lesser extent.
I agree with you on this and it did take homework and negotiation and a trip from Nixon.

Its just a reality, and not being idealistic. and no I dont support GWB on like everything he has done and realize his massive errors in the past 8 years,so dont lump me in with him or infer that I do becuase I dont.

I didn't mean to infer anything.
I think that a lot of people instantly equate talking with giving up the farm. That's the point of negotiations. If you make a deal and it is violated then you have standing. It could constitute a negotiation and a realization that these people are as bat*** as everyone thought or it could be the exact opposite. One never knows by slinging mud.
 
your right wam, and it is very true what you said. I see talking to a nation we dont like as akin to negotatiting a long term contract with a high profile player like we are with Zach Thomas. it may sound simplistic but working on a contract that is full of diplomatic connotations is like talking to an agent and ironing out the detaiols and getting pass egos and findidng the best deal for both sides.

Usually you hope to get the guy to agree to your side and your team, and it works and sometimes it does not. it trial and error sort of stuff, at the end of the day you have to hope you find the best deal for all sides.

I hope the anology works or makes sense. Diplomats are kind of like sports agents talking up their side and getting the best deal wam, but it takes a bit of effort and a lot of luck to get it working right
 
???
The White House directs the Pentagon as to what they should do. It has everything to do with the White House.

Semantics. The practice of setting up a post just about everywhere our military goes is not a strategic decision but a tactical one. And it's what we've been doing for decades. I promise you, we will technically "be in Iraq" for a long time regardless of who is in the White House.
 
Semantics. The practice of setting up a post just about everywhere our military goes is not a strategic decision but a tactical one. And it's what we've been doing for decades. I promise you, we will technically "be in Iraq" for a long time regardless of who is in the White House.

The model for this was Rome a couple millenia back.
 
The model for this was Rome a couple millenia back.

And we sere how that turned out.

With each new outpost, a new set of "vital security interests" were acquired, which in turn necessitated extending the frontier even further, taking on new commitments and setting up still more outposts until the cost and burden became too expensive, with many of the commitments taken on bearing little or no relation to the real vital interests of Rome.

Then the thing collapsed.

And this is your advice? Let's be Rome?

We are trully doomed to repeat history.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom