Can we just laugh?

It's not only sheer, it's stunning

OT: the glasgow crispy fried jihadist doctor is dead

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

(cracks open a beer in celebration... one less jihadist in the world is alway a source of celebration)

jesus h christ - does Obama even realise the consequences of his proposed actions? this is just ammunition to the jihadists. and boy are they dying to get their hands on the pakistani nuke arsenal.

Ouch!

Oh MY! That is rich. Can't wait to hear the response from the Obama camp. They must be in full damage control mode now. IMHO he cannot recover from this gaffe. Not even for VP.

Does that leave us Hill/Bill and Edwards?

ick.

Heh heh heh...

Ignorance, stupidity, desperation, lust for power...

PWN3D!

Bwahahahahaaa!

Charles you need to update with this cartoon from the Daily Times, Pakistan.

Btw: Zahoor does great work, he's better than most political cartoonists in the west.

re: #3 buzzdroid

OT: the glasgow crispy fried jihadist doctor is dead

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

(cracks open a beer in celebration... one less jihadist in the world is alway a source of celebration)

Yeah I heard about that...

/ Heh heh heh...

But, but, but... he's so clean...

A Paki reprimand...priceless

OsamaObama is a muslim. He's threatening to attack other muslims!

Where's the fatwa?!

Hey Barak, there's plenty of al Queda to attack and kill in Iraq, WHERE WE ARE GUESTS OF THE IRAQI GOVT. Just like we planned...heh.

For a while now I have felt that Obama was a fool put forth by forces other than himself & that he is not aware of it.

re: #10 Thanos

Now THAT is funny...

Senator Clinton is clicking her heels in the air right now, I'll betcha.

Well, but, that's how we take the wards and precincts in Chicago.

re: #15 Ojoe

For a while now I have felt that Obama was a fool put forth by forces other than himself & that he is not aware of it.

He's their Ron Paul.

yall are totally missing the point,...he was clean and articulate whilst placing his well polished loafer in his mouth...

“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan’s Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. “They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan.”

What a sad commentary on the state of American journalism. The Paki "Minister of State for Information" does a better job than any of our national legacy media.

Charles,

Thanks for posting this. I've been waiting for Pakistan's official response to Obama's gibberish. Now, will Obama be foolish enough to keep digging?

One can only hope!

Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of “sheer ignorance” for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

My guess is that we've already been quietly doing this, probably with Pakistan's tacit support. But they're right - Obama is ignorant for shooting his mouth off in public about this kind of policy.

Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of “sheer ignorance” for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

The empty suit flaps his gums again, in spite of being warned by the hildebeast to keep his mouth shut. If the democrats seize power win in 2008 I predict that the war on terror will become much bloodier and deadlier to American forces.

Wow... check out the end of the article...

Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam on Wednesday warned against "point-scoring" by US presidential candidates on vital security issues.

Musharraf abandoned Islamabad's support for the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

He has said that a top US official warned that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age" if it failed to join Washington's "war on terror".

re: #17 Cattt

More like licking her chops.

re: #25 Ginn

Wow... check out the end of the article...

Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam on Wednesday warned against "point-scoring" by US presidential candidates on vital security issues.
Musharraf abandoned Islamabad's support for the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

He has said that a top US official warned that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age" if it failed to join Washington's "war on terror".

Someone was pissed over the Pakis helping to create/arm/fund/train the Taliban it seems.

Charles,
Do you have any control over how frequently the RSS feed is updated? igoogle's always about 2 headlines behind and since you're going to start adding headlines more frequently I'm concerned I might not get the latest until too late. Or I could just pull the IV out of my arm.

re: #27 Hard Right

re: #25 Ginn

Wow... check out the end of the article...

Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam on Wednesday warned against "point-scoring" by US presidential candidates on vital security issues.
Musharraf abandoned Islamabad's support for the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.He has said that a top US official warned that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age" if it failed to join Washington's "war on terror".

Someone was pissed over the Pakis helping to create/arm/fund/train the Taliban it seems.

back to the stone age...damn it all...thats what those asshats want isnt it!

Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of “sheer ignorance” for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

I'd accuse obama of sheer ignorance period.

There isn't any cure for Stupid.

Pakastanis can Spot the Idiot from 10,000 miles away and people here in BO's own backyard still adore him.

Wonders never cease.

"And don't forget to take your head with you when you leave."

re: #25 Ginn

Wow... check out the end of the article...

Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam on Wednesday warned against "point-scoring" by US presidential candidates on vital security issues.
Musharraf abandoned Islamabad's support for the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

He has said that a top US official warned that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age" if it failed to join Washington's "war on terror".

That was back in 2001, The threat came from Richard Armitage according to Musharraf's autobiography.

re: #11 Capt_Faust

re: #27 Hard Right

Nukes in storage make these statements effective, much to the benefit of all civilized people everywhere.

Kunbayah.

Obama has inadvertently let everyone know, in one sentence, how pathetically ignorant he really is in just about every aspect of politics and international relations. This is just the icing on the cake!

re: #25 Ginn

back to the "stone age"

A short trip in those wastelands. But the pesky nukes must be considered.

re: #31 realwest

Just don't tell sandrine.

re: #32 Noam Sayin'

Pakastanis can Spot the Idiot from 10,000 miles away and people here in BO's own backyard still adore him.

Wonders never cease.

Cruise missile accurate, Noam. Ouch.

But, Obama has "clean and articulate" going for him, right? OK, maybe just "clean" now! He can't articulate his way out of a wet paper bag!

This is gonna leave a mark, too:

Washington: Talk by US officials and Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama on striking against Al Qaida targets on Pakistani territory undermine Pakistan's fight against militants, a senior official from the beleaguered American ally said on Wednesday.
snip
Ghani said the feeling in his frontline country was that "We've had to pay a big price" in hundreds of fallen soldiers and multiple terror attacks as it has backed the US fight against the Taliban and Al Qaida.

"If that is the sort of appreciation you get, then why bother at all?" the governor said in an interview.

[Link: www.gulfnews.com...]

the office of potus could be better filled by most lizaards here than by the strange empty headed , empty suit that is osama obama. he has absolutely no common sense.

re: #28 bosforus

Pimpjuice! get the tallboys.

re: #44 nyc redneck

the office of potus could be better filled by most lizaards here than by the strange empty headed , empty suit that is osama obama. he has absolutely no common sense.

I'm ready to make the sacrifice. And by God, I would FIX THINGS!

re: #31 realwest

There isn't any cure for StupidS.

From the article:

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.

Musharraf, struggling to contain a wave of Islamist violence unleashed by the army's bloody storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad three weeks ago, himself firmly rejected any US action last week.

Perhaps Obama didn't just grab this idea out of thin air.

re: #44 nyc redneck

Common sense not a requirement to be in the Donk party, much less be a candidate there!

re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

Nice.

re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

re: #34 song_and_dance_man

Sheer Ignorance (tm) is the fabric of choice when making new clothes for emperors.

yes...with new breathable butt flap for escaping policy...

re: #47 buzzsawmonkey

re: #42 6pat6

You can be articulate as all hell and still be as dumb as a box of rocks.

Lay off of Kerry; he's yesterday's news.

Boy is it really going to be fun around here when the real Democratic debates on foreign policy start.

re: #35 Thanos

re: #25 Ginn

Wow... check out the end of the article...

Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam on Wednesday warned against "point-scoring" by US presidential candidates on vital security issues.
Musharraf abandoned Islamabad's support for the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.He has said that a top US official warned that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age" if it failed to join Washington's "war on terror".

That was back in 2001, The threat came from Richard Armitage according to Musharraf's autobiography.

Thanos... from the article at the top of this thread...

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.

Musharraf, struggling to contain a wave of Islamist violence unleashed by the army's bloody storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad three weeks ago, himself firmly rejected any US action last week.

Obama really hasn't had a good couple of weeks... and this certainly plays into Hillary's theme (that Obama is too young and naive.) I'm having to practice again saying 'president clinton' ...

re: #47 buzzsawmonkey

Obama has articulated that he is a dumbass.

Musharraf has to walk a very thin tightrope.

I believe he is on the side of civilization.

re: #49 Ginn

From the article:

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.

Musharraf, struggling to contain a wave of Islamist violence unleashed by the army's bloody storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad three weeks ago, himself firmly rejected any US action last week.

Perhaps Obama didn't just grab this idea out of thin air.

The difference is that W is abiding by Musha's wishes. Osama Obama doesn't seem to care about that or the consequences.

OT:

Man charged over failed London bombings

LONDON: A 23-year-old man will appear in court on Thursday in connection with the failed bombings in London launched two weeks after the July 7, 2005 attacks that killed more than 50 people in the capital.

British police on Wednesday charged Lukimon Sulaimon with failing to disclose information “which might help in bringing a terrorist to justice in the UK,” London’s Metropolitan Police said in a statement. He will appear before City of Westminster Magistrates Court in central London on Thursday. Sulaimon was arrested on Tuesday afternoon in Brighton, southern England by officers of the Metropolitan Police’s Counter-Terrorism Command. afp

on the other hand maybe a bit of bombing in pakistanland and meccah might be the deterrence that we need to do. islamic rage boy will of course be in high demand.

re: #47 buzzsawmonkey

re: #42 6pat6

You can be articulate as all hell and still be as dumb as a box of rocks.

That's the best description of John Kerry I've every seen.

re: #45 cbinflux

what do you mean?

“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,”

aka naive

just caught this:

as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"

yeah...I think if you don't have something substantive to say, it isn't a first, more like a cry for attention...

If Hillary wants to improve her chances she should divorce Bill IMHO.

Kerry is more like "dumb as a bag of hair". At least rocks have substance to them. Hair is, well, hair!

re: #56 freetoken

Obama really hasn't had a good couple of weeks... and this certainly plays into Hillary's theme (that Obama is too young and naive.) I'm having to practice again saying 'president clinton' ...

Don't you DARE say that title and that name together every again, here or anywhere.

re: #55 Ginn

re: #35 Thanos

re: #25 Ginn

Wow... check out the end of the article...

Pakistan foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam on Wednesday warned against "point-scoring" by US presidential candidates on vital security issues.
Musharraf abandoned Islamabad's support for the Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.He has said that a top US official warned that Pakistan would be bombed back to the "stone age" if it failed to join Washington's "war on terror".

That was back in 2001, The threat came from Richard Armitage according to Musharraf's autobiography.

Thanos... from the article at the top of this thread...

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.

Musharraf, struggling to contain a wave of Islamist violence unleashed by the army's bloody storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad three weeks ago, himself firmly rejected any US action last week.

yes, I read the article this morning -- what are you trying to say?

re: #63 wvobiwan

re: #47 buzzsawmonkey

re: #42 6pat6

You can be articulate as all hell and still be as dumb as a box of rocks.

That's the best description of John Kerry I've every seen.

come on now guys...hes a bonafide war hero...just ask him...he'll tale ya...(pun intended)...

re: #67 6pat6

Kerry is more like "dumb as a bag of hair". At least rocks have substance to them. Hair is, well, hair!

I prefer "dehydrated-rock-hard-stupid". A bag of hair is at least comfortable.

re: #46 Cicero05

re: #44 nyc redneck

the office of potus could be better filled by most lizaards here than by the strange empty headed , empty suit that is osama obama. he has absolutely no common sense.

I'm ready to make the sacrifice. And by God, I would FIX THINGS!

that's what i said.

re: #59 Hard Right

Obama doesn't seem to care about that or the consequences.

The democrats only care about consequences they can used to tar and feather Republicans with. All other consequences are null and void until proper spin to place the blame on Republicans can be found.

re: #58 Ojoe

Musharraf has to walk a very thin tightrope.

I believe he is on the side of civilization.

Isn't it funny that the sophisticated Left is the bunch that understands "nuances" while the dumbass Right only sees things in simplistic balck and white terms.

While how'd you miss the "nuance" of Musharraf's delicate position in Pakistan, Obama? And what about the other "nuance" of why its important to American interests to avoid cutting him off at the knees?

One fine day a senator named Obama
said Musharraf should be treated like Osama.
That made Pervez angry at Barack,
so he sent strong words through his minister, Tarick.

Democrats requirements for a presidential candidate.
1. Clean
2. Big Hair
3. Wears a Pantsuit
4. Waffles

The Bonkeys are gonna run somebody. And, the pitting, every four years, of candidates, has produced interesting results. We've had Harry Truman, running away in 1952, because he knew Ike was more popular. The GOP had found the candidate that would galvanize most voters. Adeli Stevenson didn't make it.

What happened in 2000, however, has brought about a dysfunctional government. Bush actually won Florida. But Algore has behaved like a loser. So that it's now worse than ever. The democrapic party refuses to go along with the majority thrust in this country. And, they're clinging to powers, the way academics cling to parking spots.

I couldn't envision voting for Howie Dean. But I know lots of poor people threw money his way; because he had promised to kill Bush. (That Howie Dean got cast aside came from the elite insiders.) And, you bet. It angered the "base."

Now the Bonkeys have Obama; and no matter what else happens, ahead, the next big fissure erupts within the black community. This is "their guy."

America has always been a "big tent" country. Or as one college professor in a political "science" course called it, we're a nation of special interest groups, each one under an umbrella; and no one particular umbrella gets to lord it over others. (That's how he described the "melting pot." Which has no melting within it.)

Since each party will field candidates, the race, ahead, should get interesting.

I hope Guiliani nails the nomination; because I think he'd appeal to the mainstream voters. And, you need the majority, now, to overcome what's happened by the two wings of both parties, when it comes to satisfying their blood lust.

In 1860, Lincoln was not the favored candidate. There were 3 other men, each having their own "favorite son" status. But reality set in. After the rounds of the first vote that did not bring in the "top" candidate; Lincoln's men went around proving that to WIN, Lincoln had the goods. The others didn't.

In a TEAM OF RIVALS, Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote an excellent book. On not only Lincoln getting the republican nomination; and winning the White House; but Lincoln then offered his competitors slots in his cabinet. Where they remained "rivals." But Lincoln remained in charge.

Even if Obama, now, is having his "Howie Dean meltdown," because the elites, inside, do not want him any more than they wanted Howie Dean; there's nothing, no one, except Hillary, who will ultimately be "crowned" the Bonkey nominee.

Will the republicans be able to overcome their own "primary politics," to find someone where people can rally round?

Algore has been the sore loser. It's as crazy a set of political losing as Lincoln faced in 1860. It just hasn't come home to roost, yet.

re: #78 Carol Herman

What happened in 2000, however, has brought about a dysfunctional government. Bush actually won Florida. But Algore has behaved like a loser. So that it's now worse than ever. The democrapic party refuses to go along with the majority thrust in this country. And, they're clinging to powers, the way academics cling to parking spots.

That's a great way to put it :)

re: #26 bulwrk

re: #17 Cattt

More like licking her chops.

Just as long as she doesn't do both at the same time and bite her tongue.

/:)

re: #69 Thanos

Thanos..

Sorry... I was too vague. Yes, the "bomb you back to the Stone Age was in 2001." It looks like from this article that the Bush admin has been talking about Pakistan in the last few weeks. So perhaps Obama didn't get this idea out of thin air.

That's all.

Hey, vote for me!

/I'm the Assclown in Chief!

Stupid? Naive? Mr Big Talker. Maroon.

Obama would not do something like this under any circumstances. He was touted as someone who was honest about his beliefs but this just shows otherwise. He did this for mass appeal and to look tough. He had to know that these statements contradict the ones he made about talking to our enemies and not starting wars. He should just admit that he was lying about all this and be done with it.

How do we know that Obama isn't actually voicing the desires of his Saudi masters?

re: #76 new2thezoo

Democrats requirements for a presidential candidate.
1. Clean
2. Big Hair
3. Wears a Pantsuit
4. Waffles

cleavage option?...(dont worry edwards,...ive seen a guy who got implants on the man show once)...

Nobody voting for B.O. is paying any attention to what he's actually saying or what Pakistan has to say about it. It's likely all a bunch of hot air anyway. At MOST, we'll get Slick Willy-style missile strikes to pacify Americans into believing we're really doing something about our Enemies while quietly going back to sleep, resuming the Real work of the Democrat agenda... Giving away our money to environazi lobbies, creating massive entitlement programs to benefit people who contribute little or nothing to the economy, passing laws restricting our rights to things like alternative ideas (talk radio) and self-defense.

Things just aren't looking good for the time ahead and I really hope one of our guys finally takes the gloves off and saves this country from a certainly trying era.

Obama: "I would have never gone into Iraq" ... "We must now get out of Iraq".

Iraq has been, and continues to be, a breeding ground for terrorists who want to do harm to Western Civilization.

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

Fucking Hypocrite.

I think Senator Obama's handlers had fed him some idea about Pakistan, to make President Bush et all look bad, and he mangled it beyond recognition - like the way Alice completely fried Benjy's duck joke in My Favorite Year.

re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

Sheer Ignorance (tm) is the fabric of choice when making new clothes for emperors.

There is nothing more to say here... move along.

He would've done better calling out the ISI, but who knows who was connected to his madrassa?

Barack, you fool. It is essential that we pick our fights very carefully.

I'd say "sheer stupidity" but that seems to come easy to a dimocrat.

That may have cost Obie the game. The far left are against any war effort and he made a jack ass out of himself with the latte lapping moderates.
Hillary, the nomination is your to lose.

Obama is also clearly unaware of the concept of logistics.

All ground supply for all Allied forces within Afghanistan comes through Pakistan, including almost all of the fuel used by Allied forces.

Threatening to attack ones own supply lines is particularly stupid.

It's also called suicidal.

SELF
EDUCATED,
R

Sean Obama Penn...

I haven't heard a lib screw up this bad since the last John Kerry joke.

Senator Obama would fit right in with those embarrassing "man on the street" Q&A things Sean Hannity does, where people can't answer "who's buried in Grant's tomb."

I will have to seriously consider giving my vote to Obama.

VDH:

General Obama [Victor Davis Hanson]

Many have jumped all over Sen. Obama's suggestion that as Commander-in-Chief he might well cross the border, asked or not, into Pakistan, with beefed-up ground troops, to destroy the purported al-Qaeda sanctuaries. Apart from the notion that it would be as hard to distinguish civilians in a Waziristan from terrorists as it is in Iraq, which the senator has written off, other questions arise. As a US Senator why not now introduce an October 11, 2002-type resolution, authorizing such an invasion? Or why hasn't he in the past?

Obama has criticized Sen. Clinton for her approval of that Iraqi authorization, but the sort of action he is envisioning involves crossing into a nuclear Islamic country, one bullet away from an Islamic republic, and surely should be a question for Congressional approval.

Others have pointed out that his criticism of Musharref is contrasted by his willingness to parley with far worse in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. And what were his reactions to our prior Predator strike on al Qaeda notables inside Pakistan-approval, criticism, or mere silence?

The administration should craft a careful reply, because Americans themselves are frustrated that an ally like Pakistan still harbors at least some of the murderers of 9/11. In this regard it is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign critique of the first Bush administration's failure to stop the genocide in the Balkans. Never mind that Clinton himself, when in power, then waited years to act; all that mattered was that his campaign saber-rattling was not answered well by the Republicans and gave him a thin veneer of national security fides to his otherwise suspect candidacy.

So, yes, Obama's suggestion is fraught with hypocrisy and poorly thought out and patently political and designed to touché Hillary, given her recent knocks that he was naive on national security. But his suggestion still must be countered logically and rationally since millions of Americans, as the senator's focus groups no doubt attest, are frustrated by this inaction as well, and the very notion that an aide beneficiary like Pakistan is harboring, willingly or not, leftover architects of 9/11.

We need more candidates to promise to take military action against Islamist strongholds.

Watch it here:

javascript:void(window.open('[Link: cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com...]

Still not ready for big leagues. It's harder to say who's dumber, Obama for saying it or the advisers who told him to say it.

...what efforts by Pakistan?

Yeah, they're workin real hard...not to find anyone.

Don't forget "O'bomb'a" is has rock star status and is in the presidential race because of the leftist in the MSM.

My only concern: does he mean it?

I'm flabbergasted to see lizards knocking him for saying something so pro-war and anti-jihadist.

Is your only concern Republicrats vs. Democrats? Mine is defeating the IslamoNazis.

Barack Hussein Obama will not be our next president.

re: #106 ibrodsky

See my #88

re: #108 buzzsawmonkey

re: #106 ibrodsky

My only concern: does he mean it?

I'm flabbergasted to see lizards knocking him for saying something so pro-war and anti-jihadist.

Is your only concern Republicrats vs. Democrats? Mine is defeating the IslamoNazis.

Are you trying for the Bigel Prize?

Of course Obama doesn't mean it. He is just trying to show that he has bigger cojones than Hillary. Whether or not that is true, he picked a really stupid way to try and show it.

The really funny part was that he actually thought this was a good idea. I especially liked how he pronounced "Pokistan". Like he thought that would get him points too.

I can't stand it any longer. I have to confess, I spent the best four years of my life at the U of A in Tuscaloosa, and everytime I see ' Obama' in that context, I want to gag. Can't we just call him Hussein instead?

Forget Obama...what about this ridiculous statement:

Pakistan’s Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. “They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan.”

especially, "...not aware of the efforts by Pakistan.”

Sounds like the Iraqi Minister of Information before the war.

Where did Obama get his military creds? Same place Hillary did I suppose. From Bill who served...oh that's right...nowhere.

#112,

I can tell you seriously that they are committing suicide at the gates of the airport even now.

I miss 'Mo Seef something fierce... he was the most fun ever.
Maybe he'll get a job managing some Dhimm's campaign

Just imagining the reaction of the Democrats had GWB said what Obama did...and laughing.

re: #114 kansas

What are you taling about, Bill studied at Monica U

re: #117 So?

Maybe at the Y.

I'm not sure I totally disagree with Obama's statements...I just wish he would have included Saudi Arabia as well.

Large sections of Pakistan are not even under government control and from what I'm reading here in LGF, it gets worse daily.

re: #111 tradewind
i m with you. i want him to lose that name

This was Obama's Howard Dean moment.

re: #108 buzzsawmonkey

re: #106 ibrodsky

My only concern: does he mean it?

I'm flabbergasted to see lizards knocking him for saying something so pro-war and anti-jihadist.

Is your only concern Republicrats vs. Democrats? Mine is defeating the IslamoNazis.

Are you trying for the Bigel Prize?

Of course Obama doesn't mean it. He is just trying to show that he has bigger cojones than Hillary. Whether or not that is true, he picked a really stupid way to try and show it.

They both have bigger cojones than Bush/Rice.

We should be encouraging all candidates to prosecute this war.

Cox and Forkum on Obama.

The problem is that Hillary is going to ask Obama to be her VP. So we will have two liars in the White House (Bill will get his own "suite") and an ignoramus at the Veeps residence on Massachusetts Ave. Not a pretty picture.

If the Republicans don't get their act together and nominate someone who will appeal to the center, the USA is in big big trouble INHO.

re: #124 phillygirl

If that does happen, I can see the white flags waving above the whitehouse

re: #114 kansas

Where did Obama get his military creds? Same place Hillary did I suppose. From Bill who served...oh that's right...nowhere.

re: #88 Racer X

Obama: "I would have never gone into Iraq" ... "We must now get out of Iraq".

Iraq has been, and continues to be, a breeding ground for terrorists who want to do harm to Western Civilization.

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

[deleted] Hypocrite.

What if he's wrong about Iraq but right about Pakistan?

Is Bush right about Saudi Arabia? Is he right about Fatah?

re: #124 phillygirl

The problem is that Hillary is going to ask Obama to be her VP. So we will have two liars in the White House (Bill will get his own "suite") and an ignoramus at the Veeps residence on Massachusetts Ave. Not a pretty picture.

If the Republicans don't get their act together and nominate someone who will appeal to the center, the USA is in big big trouble INHO.

Not gonna happen - they hate each other much more than candidates in the past that have made up. But, who knows what they will do to get in the whitehouse.

Large sections of Pakistan have never been under government control, any government, including the British colonial government.

===

Mushie can count only a small part of the Paki military and almost none of the Paki Intel community as being politically reliable.

Paki ISI is as bad, if not worse, than our own LLL/BDS infested CIA/FBI/State. Not all that surprising, Paki ISI created the Taliban.

===

Noting the logistical restrictions involved, just which US military units does Obama, (or any apparently confused Lizards), intend to use in an invasion against our own supply lines through Pakistan? How many of those troops would be lost attempting to secure the Paki nukes?

===

If you only have one receiver on the field, you cannot throw a Hail Mary pass, play Run&Shoot offense, or West Coast offense.

THREE YARDS
AND
A CLOUD OF DUST,
R

re: #126 buzzsawmonkey

You have absolutely no evidence for claiming that either has bigger cojones than Bush. Their eagerness to withdraw from the theater where we are actually engaged argues they do not.

Yes, we should be encouraging all candidates to prosecute this war. That doesn't mean we should stand up and cheer when one of them makes an asinine statement, telegraphing a totally impracticable plan.

Lady MacBeth vs. Bush? No contest.

Much less sure about Obama. But again, I'm not going to fault him when he happens to be right.

re: #130 ibrodsky

don't we need pakistan air space?

re: #4 buzzdroid

jesus h christ - does Obama even realise the consequences of his proposed actions? this is just ammunition to the jihadists. and boy are they dying to get their hands on the pakistani nuke arsenal.

Yeah. Doesn't he realize he might make them mad?

/Don't make them mad at us.

re: #14 wvobiwan

OsamaObama is a muslim. He's threatening to attack other muslims!

Where's the fatwa?!

Hey Barak, there's plenty of al Queda to attack and kill in Iraq, WHERE WE ARE GUESTS OF THE IRAQI GOVT. Just like we planned...heh.

So many dumb comments. Not enough time.

Is the new rule: only fight Islamists when we are invited?

“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan’s Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. “They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan.”

And CAIR opposes terrorism in all its forms.

/Don't forget that.

[Link: billroggio.com...]

[Link: billroggio.com...]

[Link: billroggio.com...]

[Link: billroggio.com...]

[Link: billroggio.com...]

[Link: www.billroggio.com...]

LEARN
TO
SWIM,
R

re: #131 southernborn

re: #130 ibrodsky

don't we need pakistan air space?

Yeah, it will take at least an hour to gain complete control of it.

#120,
Cox and Forkum solved that one nicely. :)
Invade Pakistan? Sounds like a suicidal, bad-idea mission. Flattening those Al Q' mountain rats' nests, though, (after fair warning), from wayyy up high? Not so much.

re: #133 ibrodsky

re: #14 wvobiwan

OsamaObama is a muslim. He's threatening to attack other muslims!

Where's the fatwa?!

Hey Barak, there's plenty of al Queda to attack and kill in Iraq, WHERE WE ARE GUESTS OF THE IRAQI GOVT. Just like we planned...heh.

So many dumb comments. Not enough time.

Why are you being such a dick? BO made a hypocritical comment that he deserves to be called on.

re: #119 Maximu§

I'm not sure I totally disagree with Obama's statements...I just wish he would have included Saudi Arabia as well.

Large sections of Pakistan are not even under government control and from what I'm reading here in LGF, it gets worse daily.

Ding! Ding!

...For awhile I was afraid LGF was taken over by space aliens.

You are absolutely right.

Control of air space means absolutely nothing if one hasn't the means or the ability to control the ground space under it.

As Hermann Goering discovered.

===

Somebody's getting real close to earning themselves a Moby award.

READ
MORE,
R

re: #138 Captain Hate

re: #133 ibrodsky

re: #14 wvobiwan

OsamaObama is a muslim. He's threatening to attack other muslims!
Where's the fatwa?!

Hey Barak, there's plenty of al Queda to attack and kill in Iraq, WHERE WE ARE GUESTS OF THE IRAQI GOVT. Just like we planned...heh.

So many dumb comments. Not enough time.

Why are you being such a dick? BO made a hypocritical comment that he deserves to be called on.

The Taliban are still very much in business.

Is that because:

a. we can't cover all of Afghanistan
b. they are just so big and strong
c. they are able to hide, regroup, and recruit in Pakistan

Why are you such a pussy[cat]?

Oh, let's quit beating around the bush: If Hillary wins, we get eight more years of Slick.
And that's why she'll probably win, dammit. The boomer wonks are jonesing for those good time rock-and-roll all-night pizza sessions when they kicked back in their jeans watching Sorkin so they could get inspiration for some awesome foreign policy.

#141,
The point is :
No ground under it left to manage.
Or a lot less of it, and Mushy's territory, not the warlords'.

re: #142 ibrodsky

re: #138 Captain Hate

re: #133 ibrodsky

re: #14 wvobiwan

OsamaObama is a muslim. He's threatening to attack other muslims!
Where's the fatwa?!
Hey Barak, there's plenty of al Queda to attack and kill in Iraq, WHERE WE ARE GUESTS OF THE IRAQI GOVT. Just like we planned...heh.

So many dumb comments. Not enough time.

Why are you being such a dick? BO made a hypocritical comment that he deserves to be called on.

The Taliban are still very much in business.

Is that because:

a. we can't cover all of Afghanistan
b. they are just so big and strong
c. they are able to hide, regroup, and recruit in Pakistan

Why are you such a pussy[cat]?

It must really suck to be so full of yourself to "know" that you're smarter than everybody else despite ample evidence to the contrary which everybody else understands.

The Taliban is indeed still in business. But their current business plan is solely concerned with self-preservation.

Only in Helmand Province, (opium central), are the Taliban making an attempt to stand and fight within Afghanistan. Elsewhere in Afghanistan the Talib have been reduced to kidnapping and suicide bombs.

Now, Mushies people are attacking the Taliban and their al-Q allies in their last refuges.

===

Is there somebody questioning the veracity of Bill Roggio?

LAST
CALL,
R

re: #140 buzzsawmonkey

re: #130 ibrodsky

You are mistaking Ms. Clinton's ruthlessness in pursuit of her own self-aggrandizement for her interest in, or ability to, pursue a foreign policy on behalf of the United States.

Sometimes ruthless pursuit of power and fame is expressed through military action.

It certainly isn't expressed by coddling Saudi Arabia and Fatah.

re: #145 Captain Hate

re: #142 ibrodsky

It must really suck to be so full of yourself to "know" that you're smarter than everybody else despite ample evidence to the contrary which everybody else understands.

It's better than being a vulgar low life.

re: #140 buzzsawmonkey

re: #130 ibrodsky

You are mistaking Ms. Clinton's ruthlessness in pursuit of her own self-aggrandizement for her interest in, or ability to, pursue a foreign policy on behalf of the United States.

No. She's just a damn marxist.

One more time for the stupid people...

What troops are you going to use to invade Pakistan and how will you supply them?

ENOUGH,
R

re: #144 tradewind

Airpower, no matter how massive or accurate, has never, ever taken ground from any enemy. Nor is it likely too anytime soon.

STALINGRAD,
R

re: #49 Ginn

From the article:

Perhaps Obama didn't just grab this idea out of thin air.

Heh-heh. Who's Bush-Cheney lite now?

re: #124 phillygirl

The problem is that Hillary is going to ask Obama to be her VP. So we will have two liars in the White House (Bill will get his own "suite") and an ignoramus at the Veeps residence on Massachusetts Ave. Not a pretty picture.

If the Republicans don't get their act together and nominate someone who will appeal to the center, the USA is in big big trouble INHO.

Not a pretty picture indeed but we have seen it before from 1993 to 2000.

And we got that picture by running candidates in '92 and '96 to appeal to that center.

Obama's promise to invade Pakistan will be in the Dem's promise museum near the Bill Clinton middle class tax cut.

re: #148 ibrodsky

re: #145 Captain Hate

re: #142 ibrodsky

It must really suck to be so full of yourself to "know" that you're smarter than everybody else despite ample evidence to the contrary which everybody else understands.

It's better than being a vulgar low life.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised when taking you to task for badmouthing other lizards for pointing out the hypocrisy of Obamalama's idiotic statement,
that you'd get around to insulting me as well. Meanwhile you act like taking action against Pakistan would be like a day at the beach with no possible negative consequences. The last time we treated allies with such high-handed disregard was under the Carter administration.

#152,
Hiroshima.

Nagasaki.

Just sayin'.

re: #59 Hard Right

re: #49 Ginn

From the article:

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.
Musharraf, struggling to contain a wave of Islamist violence unleashed by the army's bloody storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad three weeks ago, himself firmly rejected any US action last week.

Perhaps Obama didn't just grab this idea out of thin air.

The difference is that W is abiding by Musha's wishes. Osama Obama doesn't seem to care about that or the consequences.

No the real difference is that W never said nukes were off the table. Obama already showed his cards by saying nukes will never be an option for him. As for the Pakis, I hope we are not going to be screwing with them too much, b/c we will definitely get no love from the UN. Since the Pakis are the ones who provide the most UN troops. Pakistan is a complicated place, it would become an instant quagmire if we put boots on the ground. And the taliban in the caves are 'somewhat' logistically contained. Screw'em, I would rather face Iran!

re: #110 Racer X

Racer, is there a link to some vid or aud for that? Gawd, I want to hear him say "Pokistan."

re: #6 Crimsonfisted

...Does that leave us Hill/Bill and Edwards?

ick.

Hillary might just pick Bill as her running mate. Can Bill run again as a VP?

re: #149 buzzsawmonkey

re: #147 ibrodsky

re: #140 buzzsawmonkey

re: #130 ibrodsky
You are mistaking Ms. Clinton's ruthlessness in pursuit of her own self-aggrandizement for her interest in, or ability to, pursue a foreign policy on behalf of the United States.

Sometimes ruthless pursuit of power and fame is expressed through military action.
It certainly isn't expressed by coddling Saudi Arabia and Fatah.

You are forgetting the famous Hillary/Suha Arafat kiss.

You have no basis whatever for believing that Ms. Clinton will be stronger against Fatah than Bush is now--in fact, based upon the previous Clinton regime, all arguments are against it.

The problem of Saudi Arabian influence is not confined to one side of the aisle. On the Democrats' side, however, the malevolent and anti-Israel influence of George Soros is added to the problem of Saudi influence.

You are deluding yourself, on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the current administration, into believing that the Democrats would be better.

Roger and the main problem with the Saudis is that they retain control of the $ USD currency. If they accept EUR or some other currency for oil. You can kiss our economy goodbye. ibrodsky, you might want to study the playing field a little more. The Saudis are holding Aces and 8's with our international economy in regard to energy and economy. Notice, we didn't say shit when the did not let us stage vehicles and forces for OIF.

re: #159 Used2bL

Hillary might just pick Bill as her running mate. Can Bill run again as a VP?

That question was exhaustively debated on a lefty blog where I lurk. The answer is No. (Sorry if you were being sarcastic.)

The whole business of how poisonous will be the relations between Hillary and her running mate is something that brings many an evil wicked grin to my face.

re: #160 Paratrooper

Roger and the main problem with the Saudis is that they retain control of the $ USD currency. If they accept EUR or some other currency for oil. You can kiss our economy goodbye. ibrodsky, you might want to study the playing field a little more. The Saudis are holding Aces and 8's with our international economy in regard to energy and economy. Notice, we didn't say shit when the did not let us stage vehicles and forces for OIF.

I don't think I agree with this. When countries make economic decisions based on politics that fly in the face of sound economics, it usually comes back to bite them. The Saudis deal in dollars because it's the best currency through history for holding its value. Also with their massive investments in T-Bills, the last thing they want is for their financial stockpile to diminish considerably. I think we're both joined at the wallet.

I was curious what direction this site was going to go if a Democrat was ever in office, and all of these hypocritical and nonsensical Obama threads have clearly shown what it would be like.

It's time to remove the lie of FAQ answer number one. This is clearly a right wing blog, and that's all it is.

.re: #163 stormhit

Actually this is mainstream, which is just to the right of left-wing, where, presumably, you are.

re: #163 stormhit
so...

re: #163 stormhit

I was curious what direction this site was going to go if a Democrat was ever in office, and all of these hypocritical and nonsensical Obama threads have clearly shown what it would be like.

It's time to remove the lie of FAQ answer number one. This is clearly a right wing blog, and that's all it is.

Why are they hypocritical and nonsensical?

the Cllintons are celebrating the dems nomination tonight. After this one Obama is no longer a contender. Who is giving him advice?

re: #154 geoffb5

Not a pretty picture indeed but we have seen it before from 1993 to 2000.

And we got that picture by running candidates in '92 and '96 to appeal to that center.

In 1992 the Rebublicans nominated sitting President George H.W. Bush (the elder) and Dan Quayle (a laughing stock) for Pres and VP. But there was also the Ross Perot factor that year, which caused some voters to skip the Republicans for crazy as a fox Ross P.

In 1996 the Republicans nominated Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. They gave up any chance of the WH because Dole was no match for Billy C's charm (and lies)/ He didn't have the same appeal to women as our first "black" president.

It's all about charisma - which is the only reason why I think Hillary can be defeated - by the right, strong candidate.

The Shrill One has the charisma of a case of the clap. All the Party of (R) has to do is get someone that will capture the "slightly right of centers" and galvanize the solid conservatives.

re: #157 Paratrooper

re: #59 Hard Right

re: #49 Ginn

From the article:

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.
Musharraf, struggling to contain a wave of Islamist violence unleashed by the army's bloody storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad three weeks ago, himself firmly rejected any US action last week.

Perhaps Obama didn't just grab this idea out of thin air.

The difference is that W is abiding by Musha's wishes. Osama Obama doesn't seem to care about that or the consequences.

No the real difference is that W never said nukes were off the table. Obama already showed his cards by saying nukes will never be an option for him. As for the Pakis, I hope we are not going to be screwing with them too much, b/c we will definitely get no love from the UN. Since the Pakis are the ones who provide the most UN troops. Pakistan is a complicated place, it would become an instant quagmire if we put boots on the ground. And the taliban in the caves are 'somewhat' logistically contained. Screw'em, I would rather face Iran!

Not to mention our invading would piss off tons of the Pakis who would probably overthrow Mushariff, handing nukes to the Islamofascists. Greeeaaat idea...

#156 Smooth. Another one of the "take off and nuke em from orbit" types. I'm sure the Chinese, who are after all, a neighbor of Pakistan's, will appreciate that. Come to think of it, nuking Pakistan would probably make the Indians more than a bit twitchy as well.

Come up with a better plan.

===
#163

No. This is a War Wing blog.

It's The War, stupid.

===

NO PLACE
FOR DISGRACE,
R

re: #168 phillygirl

I agree about charisma. A Conservative with it will win even against the Clinton machine. But I don't think a centerist Republican can win even with charisma. By centerist I mean one that is willing to appease both the left and our enemies like the wishy washy Senators we have seen. Right now only McCain fits that mold and then only in appeasing the left. The other 3 main Republicans are different from each other but none are appeasers or wishy washy.

In '92 Perot wasn't helpful but GHW Bush tried to appease the left and center by taking very unconservative (gun control and taxes were the deal breakers for me) actions that led to his approval dropping from the 90's to losing to Clinton who never got 50%. Dole was a decent man but was a centerist Republican.

Clinton was a master politician who convinced many that he was a conservative Democrat (a different animal from a conservative Republican but not quite liberal) and convinced the left that he was one of them. That could only be done with the connivance of the Media. It won't happen like that for Hillary, but unless there is a clear difference between the Republican candidate and the Democrat the Democrat may well win.

I seem to recall, in the 2000 campaign, it was Dubya Bush who couldn't name the President of Pakistan in that stupid pop quiz by some idiot reporter.

Now we have a Democratic candidate making threats against him.

Someone made a good point that reminded me of something.

Remember how China reacted the last time we invaded a country that bordered theirs?

Sorry, but the "kill 'em all" solution isn't an option so you can come back to reality now.

re: #160 Paratrooper

Roger and the main problem with the Saudis is that they retain control of the $ USD currency. If they accept EUR or some other currency for oil. You can kiss our economy goodbye. ibrodsky, you might want to study the playing field a little more. The Saudis are holding Aces and 8's with our international economy in regard to energy and economy. Notice, we didn't say shit when the did not let us stage vehicles and forces for OIF.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that our foreign policy is held hostage to Saudi oil and that's a reality we just have to accept.

Sorry, I don't accept it.

We should undertake a major push to build nuclear power plants, develop new sources of fossil fuels, and otherwise shift our purchases away from Saudi Arabia. Then we can set a foreign policy course that recognizes Saudi involvement in spreading jihad and terrorism--instead of closing our eyes and pretending otherwise.

There is an editorial in today's WSJ that basically says "At least Obama is for using force somewhere."

And that has been my point.

While Pakistan has a pro-Western layer of society in its major cities, the country is run by a (benevolent) dictator. The rebuke to Obama was issued by his Minister of Propaganda. Al Qaeda enjoys strong support in rural Pakistan. And it's generally recognized that Musharef has tried to avoid confronting the rural tribes. I would go so far as to say his job has been walking the tightrope of convincing us he's fighting terrorists and trying to avoid actually doing it.

re: #176 ibrodsky

There is an editorial in today's WSJ that basically says "At least Obama is for using force somewhere."

And that has been my point.

While Pakistan has a pro-Western layer of society in its major cities, the country is run by a (benevolent) dictator. The rebuke to Obama was issued by his Minister of Propaganda. Al Qaeda enjoys strong support in rural Pakistan. And it's generally recognized that Musharef has tried to avoid confronting the rural tribes. I would go so far as to say his job has been walking the tightrope of convincing us he's fighting terrorists and trying to avoid actually doing it.

And the alternative is to invade, destabilize the country and then watch Al-Q take over and have a nuclear arsenal for our troubles. It's just not a good idea at this time and may never be at any time.

re: #124 phillygirl

The problem is that Hillary is going to ask Obama to be her VP.

And we all know that Barak Hussein Obama is less qualified to be veep than Dan Quayle.

Some might say that BO has just "remarked" himself out of the running. But as a very wise man once said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate."

Well, I tell ya this. When Obama made this statement, he sure did not stoop to the political correctness, terrorist loving mantra the Democratic party is so well known for. But it certainly was not a professional statement to make coming from a civil person. But it's amazing how the left villified George Bush for saying that he wanted Bin Laden dead or alive and that any country is either with us, or with the terrorists. And now Obama talks about bombing Pakistan.

But then again, regimes such as North Korea and al Qaeda constantly make bellicose statements against the U.S. without ANY criticism whatsoever so maybe it's high time Americans in high public office dish it right back to them!

I just find Obama's desire to bomb Pakistan quite ironic considering the Democrat's criticism of Bush for his lack of diplomacy.

Barry is simply trying to show he's got some sack.