 To
Buzz Right Back on this article
click here
|
|
|
Thanks Spence but I think I have read enough on Bin Laden's view on the world. Have since my days in Saudi Arabia. Everything comes down to the same thing. Convert to Islam or die. His mission has been stated very clearly for years. He intends to create a caliphate and bring Muslim rule back to its proper place in the world. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. His bottom line has not changed one bit. Those who think otherwise are not paying attention. The infidel must be destroyed to protect Islam from corruption by the rest of us as he believes that many of the rulers of many Islamic countries have been. We ignore his bottom line at our own peril.
Written by Sharon
on 8/10/2007
|
Sharon, you and Richard might both be interested in "Messages to the World", available in most book stores. It's a lightly edited translation of bin Laden's publications and speeches since about 96 or so. The translation is done pro bono by a completely respectable non-profit. It is useful reading -- and certainly not as laborious as, say, Mein Kampf.
</Br>
Thought you'd be interested.
Written by Spence Maher
on 8/10/2007
|
OK OK bottom line we do not need, want or can afford a Black president to come in, make the white man more of a raciest. I do not care if the man has a IQ of 400 we do not need a black or a woman as a president. Look at Louisiana now from the black leaders and Governor.
Written by A very concerned Louisiana
on 8/10/2007
|
Richard P. You obviously must be getting all your news in soundbytes. "Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries." Bin Laden declared war on us. And on all Western Cultures. Either you believe him/them or not. Convert or die. Very simple. I'm sure that you have a better solution though. So none of us should be very worried. Once GWB leaves office, all will be well.
Written by Sharon
on 8/10/2007
|
When has bin Laden's stated goal been to "rule the world?" The main things he's said that he's wanted are two: western troops not on Saudi soil -- and he's gotten that -- and a Palestinian nation in place of Israel. The U.S. doesn't want to rule the world? Maybe not quite that, but it definitely wants to keep that oil flowing. There's no way that we could possibly "just enjoy what we've built" without the oil, hence our whole sorry history with trying to orchestrate affairs in places like Iran and Iraq. As for the Kuwait business, it might never have gotten started had the previous Bush administration not sent mixed signals to the Iraqi's whom the U.S was very responsible from Reagan on for building up as a counter to Iran whose Shah regime the U.S. was also responsible for installing and building up all in the name of having friends over there that we could rely on for their oil. The best thing for this country would be to be energy independent or at least less dependent on imported oil, however the Bush family has long had their friendship with the Saudi's -- why did we allow the Saudi's in the U.S. to make their quick exit right after 9/11/2001 when the rest of U.S. airspace was shut down? -- and have done little to advance the cause of U.S. energy independence while this current administration especially has handed corporate energy interests a blank cheque for whatever they want. Isolationism is simply not practical but a realistic, proper and skillful balancing of all interests is a must.
Written by Richard P.
on 8/9/2007
|
I agree, Sid. Saud, having lived in Saudi Arabia for 22 years and been there during Desert Storm I know for a fact that the Saudis were glad to have the Americans liberate Kuwait and proect your country. We would have preferred to have the Arab states do it themselves but they could/would not. The United States does not want to "rule the world" as you say. We would be just as happy to be left alone to enjoy what we have built all these years. We cannot however sit back and watch radical terrorists hijack a religion to obtain their goal which is (as stated by them) to rule the world. Bin Laden is not a friend of your country. Obama's comments were not helpful as he is not the one to be making decisions at this time. That is the danger in his remarks. If he is elected POTUS, then he can say what he will or not do.
Written by Sharon
on 8/9/2007
|
God help us!
Written by Sid
on 8/9/2007
|
"We are in a war...." Bush et al. themselves have been the ones using such terminology all this time and also the ones guilty of taking it lightly, as in the same vein as the cowboy "Bring it on..." and "dead or alive..." statements. Right-wing types are in no position at all to be saying anything about a candidate for president assuming office needing on-the-job training. Even the crop of GOP hopefuls are all backing off imitating Bush's practice of deferring so much to his vice-president, i.e. they concede that this has in fact been the practice, thus they concede Bush never really has had what it takes to be the man on whose desk the buck has to stop. The fact is that the use of the "war" terminology has been done only to suit the GOP political agenda and to reward their friends such as Halliburton. If we really meant business about being at war there'd be a military draft and perhaps rationing and an overall geniune war footing. The only people having to do the heavy-lifting this whole time are the volunteer military and their families. The results speak for themselves as regards the non-seriousness of this administration: the dropping of the ball in going after bin Laden, invading of Iraq without any plan for the aftermath, the constant insulting of other nations left and right when we need allies. If the Pakistan situation does develop into a real crisis then that has to be laid at Bush's feet, not candidate Barack Obama's. Saddam Hussein was never near the threat to the U.S. that they made him to be while they've done very little to address the bona fide threats.
Written by Richard P.
on 8/9/2007
|
To Sid,
You are full of hate to others; your aim is to control the world.. It was USA who created Alqaeda to defeat the Russians in Afaganistan..
The Twin Towers, it was an inteligence covert operation as a pretext to wage the war against ' ISLAM '. It was impossible to beleive unarmed indiviuals to hijack a plane.
Further, the Anthrax operation was also a fabricated one just as a pretext to invade Iraq... Pls read the comments by Maffia on 8/9/07
Written by SAUD From Saudi Arabia
on 8/9/2007
|
After reading these posts, I am shaking my head in disbelief. Does anyone besides Sharon and a few others have a brain and can think for themselves? All I have read is standard rhetoric from the democratic platform. No substance, no plans. Get a grip people, we (dems & republicans) are in a war with radical islamist terrorists...and it's been going on before George Bush. History repeats itself and with someone like Hussien Obama as president we will have another Pearl Harbor or Twin Towers. You can't govern by the polls.
Written by Sid
on 8/9/2007
|
Jeff, are you gay? that smile, i don't know, you look awfully like my gay friends, lighten up you right wing homo!!
Written by girl next door
on 8/9/2007
|
It is very abvious that the writer is all against Mr. Obama and that the purpose of the article is solely to critisize him as a candidate for the the benefit of the others. Any thing otherwise is thoughtless.
Written by SAUD From Saudi Arabia
on 8/9/2007
|
His Bios says it all:
Crouere has held many leadership positions in the Louisiana Republican Party, including Deputy Chairman and Executive Director. In 2000, he served as the Louisiana Chairman of the Republican National Committee Catholic Task Force. For the past two years, he has held the position of President of the Northshore Republican Men's Club, a dynamic GOP organization in the state's only Republican majority parish.
Written by DSH
on 8/9/2007
|
I am very please to read this article. I always voted for Dems. after these childish remarks by an optimistic, I have decided I will no longer work for Dems.
Please accept my thanks.
Sohail M Rizki
713-459-1340
Written by SOHAIL RIZKI
on 8/9/2007
|
"Causes International Crisis"? You should be ashmed of yourself. Do you consider yourself to be a religious man? If so, you need to check youself. I lean to the right but I'm disappointed in you. This is horrible, you are making up stories...
Written by Kenneph
on 8/9/2007
|
Um, exactly when did Pakistan become our friend? They have done absolutely nothing to aid us in bringing down Bin Laden, and he might even be IN THEIR COUNTRY! If I were a more cynical person, I might even ask what bothers Musharraf so much about comments made by someone who is not in a position to dictate foriegn policy. Maybe it's the idea that the US will come to Pakistan to find these terrorists? Or maybe it's that the Pakistani government has things it doesn't want the US to find out? That might be something to think about.
(By the way, in reference to the on the job training comment; How much foriegn policy experience did Bush have before becoming President? The answer rhymes with zero. Wait a minute...point taken)
Written by Ben
on 8/9/2007
|
Get a clue buddy, and go back to journo school while you're at it.
Written by What a moron
on 8/9/2007
|
Give it a rest. It's hard to see how any of the candidates can screw things up worse than Bush and his cronies have done.
Written by another Ex Republican
on 8/9/2007
|
I think that Clinton will be just as dangerous as Barack Obama to any type of foreign relationships for the United States because of her elitist attitude to virtually everyone around her. She has proven time and again that she cares only for her agenda and for power. What scares me more is that intelligent citizens of the US actually consider her a good option as President. I wonder where they buy those rose colored glasses. The guy who sells them must be making a fortune.
Written by Concerned Citizen
on 8/9/2007
|
This Jeff ain't all that bright. I'm happy that most of the commentors have called him on it. It's also hard to take seriously a "writer" who has a grammatical error in his headline. (also the word "Right" is misspelled on the "Buzz right Back button - what kind of crappy website is this?)
Written by Paulie
on 8/9/2007
|
lol, you are all lost little media puppets, you believ their lies willingly. The biggest thing that scares me is the feeling that someone out there actually belives Hillary is a viable candidate. Thats just what we need, to be the laughing stock of the entire planet.
Written by daman
on 8/9/2007
|
Just ridiculous. A presidential candidate cannot "cause" an international crisis such as the one you are describing that has been building in Pakistan for years. Musharraf's government is the problem and the problems are all of Pakistani origin. To express otherwise is either conveniently naive or duplicitously ignorant.
Written by Jim Sweet
on 8/9/2007
|
your article distorts the facts and shapes it to your own political ideology. It is because of writers like you that people receive false impressions and believe something that is not real. Way to go in not providing news but providing something that further yet confuses the average American, way to play the Politics of Fear and advance your own agenda.
Written by Anonymous
on 8/9/2007
|
I am not an Obama fan and I am glad to see him come forward with such a politcally damaging statement...However, I hope that whomever gets elected will do exactly what Obama has proposed....
Written by Bob Evans
on 8/9/2007
|
We should not elect novices to the presidency. How did Bush slip in?
Written by Thomas N Smith
on 8/9/2007
|
your opinion is noted
Written by nick
on 8/9/2007
|
hey Kathy, what about WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, you right wing nazi? Did that scare people? It scared so many of us that we actually thought it was a good idea to invade a country that never attacked us to begin with. You should be ashamed of yourself you right wing religious nazi. Let me ask you a question then: what would you supposed we do if we come to find out where Bin Laden is and the Pakistani government does nothing about? Perhaps we should follow Bush's lead and do nothing about! you are an idiot, just like your friend Jeff here.
Written by Maffia
on 8/9/2007
|
Uh, I think the spelling you're looking for is "crisis", no? Unless you mean he caused more than one crisis, which is not supported in the article.
I guess I should expect this considering the button on this form reads "Buzz Rigth Back".
Written by Paul Sargent
on 8/9/2007
|
You are right, and I know it. I completely understand the message you were trying to convey.
When it comes to politics in the good ol US of A, the whole world is listening. So when one of our politicians who are running for the "big chair" as Hillary called it, pops off some drivel about "taking action" against a country, that country then really sits up and takes notice.
When are the liberals ever going to learn that there truly are limits on freedom of speech, and that along with that freedom you simply must have some restraint and common sense?
Written by Kathy
on 8/9/2007
|
IM TIRED OF THE RIGHT AND LEFT WING NUTS. I WANT A RON PAUL MIKE GRAVELY TICKET. WHY NOT? OH AND BY THE WAY THIS ARTICLE IS A JOKE. FOOL ME ONCE SHAME... SHAME.. I WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.
Written by shane
on 8/9/2007
|
We have an office of 36 people. All of us are astonished at your slander Jeff. I hope that your boss reads this. I am about to contact every advertiser on your website and let them know that I will never purchase their products, so long as they advertise on websites that allow their employees to write such garbage as you. JEFF should be FIRED!
Written by Dennis Fox
on 8/9/2007
|
Agreed,
I think the White House needs a fresh start and new perspectives, but not this new, Obama's comment shows his clear lack of sensitivity to international diplomacy. I have a feeling its going to be Hillary - Edwards 08.
Written by Brian Fisher
on 8/9/2007
|
Get this straight folks : Pakistan and Pakistanis sympathize with ehier muslim brethren, terrorists or not. If nothng is done about it, it is a matter of time before islamic fundamentalists take over and are in control of the nukes. Before that, more than likely some other looney country is going to get the nukes from pakistan. either way, its not going to end well. So, either the world pays now or pays later.
And a piece of advice to the next American president : When another country is ready to nuke the crap out of pakistan or any country that harbors terrorists (and kill Osama Bin Ladin et al in the process), keep your mouth shut and let them do it. 9/11 could have been prevented if Bush (and the UN) had kept his mouth shut in 1999/2000.
Written by Binu Kumar
on 8/9/2007
|
Well, who else is going to go after bin laden? Bush certainly isn't.
Written by Bill
on 8/9/2007
|
It should be illegal for you to possess any writing materials!
Written by Are you kidding me?
on 8/9/2007
|
I think you are writer who has no knowledge about what you are writing. Musharaff is not an Fool, Pakistan has its own problems and hence he thought of imposing emergency.Everyone who has read this article will be laughing at you n ur news site. So funny how people can view things so stupidly.
Written by Sajjad
on 8/9/2007
|
Really? Obama Sparked an international crisis? I will not waste my time try to counter your useless drivel. All i ask is that you actually read the papers and turn on the TV sometime. Pakistan's stance has nothing to do with what an American Presidential 'Nominee' said.
Written by Not as retarded as Jeff Crouere
on 8/9/2007
|
I am not as much concerned by Obama's statements, as I am with the motivation for his comments. After taking heat for his decision to dialogue unilaterally with various dictators around the world, he flexes his muscle to public opinon, reverses his soft-line stand with a hard-line stand, and now wants to challenge Pakistan. When will a leader emerge who has both the grit and the wisdom to hold the office?
Written by rr
on 8/9/2007
|
The disclaimer prevents from saying what would be really fitting, but this is typical right wing fecal matter. The goal for the right is to screw things up royally, as they have done, then try to put it all on a democrat. Do they think we're a nation of morons? Barack Obama has NOTHING to do with making policy in Pakistan. If Bush were a real leader he would negotiate with nations instead of attacking them. His policy is "we don't negotiate with our enemies". Well, who do you negotiate with? You certainly don't negotiate with your friends! The way Jeff Crouere talks you'd think our president is Barack Obama, not Bush. I don't know if I'm more amazed at the tactics the right wing uses or if I'm more insulted. When you say "imagine how many problems he could cause as President", I'll take my chances, because as troublemakers go, I don't think you could do any worse than George Bush.
Written by Bill Larsen
on 8/9/2007
|
I am amazed at the spin that Jeff put on this. People like Jeff are propaganda spinners, not journalists.
This is a feeble attempt to tarnish Barack's image and strong stance against terrorism.
You should be fired Jeff, for your liablistic attack. People reading the article header might think what you say is true. But it isn't.
Please leave America Jeff. It is plain as day that you are more of a Nazi, than a Patriot.
Written by Tammy Blasier
on 8/9/2007
|
What a effin idiot. You can't even read much less formulate a thoughtful response to Obama's comments. Nice to see knuckleheads like you make it onto Google news. You are a case study for how bias drives opinion. Keep up the good work!
Written by Peter Nesbitt
on 8/9/2007
|
OMG, I am aghast at how clueless you are. Pakistan has had internal strife ebbing and flowing ever since Musharraf ousted Buto. If all you have to write is idiotic drivel, please refrain!
Written by j
on 8/9/2007
|
MORE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH FROM A REPUBLICAN PUPPET!
Written by PAT TWOMEY
on 8/9/2007
|
This article is laughable. The author acts as though this is the first politician to make a strong statement that another country has not been happy with. Where's the mention of the constant threatening rhetoric coming out of the White House at all times from our current president. I'm a supporter of Obama, but I urge even those who dislike him to dislike him for real reasons, not for half-hearted attempts at mud-slinging like this article.
Written by John
on 8/9/2007
|
You look like a Republican. I completely agree with the future Presiden of the United States. If we knew exactly where Osama bin Laden and his buddies were at any particular point, i can guarantee you that 100% of the people in the US would say go get the son of a bitch. You are a hypocrit and a smear pro, just like the rest of the Republicans.
Written by Maffia
on 8/9/2007
|
Obama is responsible for the state of emergency in Pakistan? Open up a history book and wrap your mind around exactly what is going on in Pakistan and you'll quickly realize that Obama may have rubbed some people the wrong way but the reason for Pakistan's slow decline into chaos is indeed the responsibility of the Government owned by a military, poor choices on US's [art to go to war in Iraq and the inability of the Pakistani government (military) to control factions/warlords in it's own borders.
To say that Obama is at fault is like saying the reason there's a crater in the ground is not due to the bomb that fell but because a butterfly on the other side of the globe flew to fast.
You would be correct in saying, however, that the last thing we need is a "learning on the job" president, as we have already done that with George W Bush and that INDEED has turned out disastrous for our nation and every other nation that gets suckered in with GWB's high falutin, cowboy ways.
Written by Andrew Rhoads
on 8/9/2007
|
I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I don't care for Obama at all but this piece is a real piece of garbage. Next time, write something worth reading.
Written by Jeff
on 8/9/2007
|
Nice try, Mr. Crouere. The current crisis in Pakistan has nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama's statements.
Don't vote for him if you don't like him. But don't blame Pakistan's problems on Mr. Obama. Readers of this rag aren't that stupid.
Written by Mark F
on 8/9/2007
|
Musharraf is not nor has ever been "a great ally". He is bought and paid for.
Barack'c comment was not a reckless statement but reasoned common sense.
Just say who you back for Pres. You already have said who you don't.
Written by Chuck Smith
on 8/9/2007
|
Jeff. You are an idiot and need to open your eyes.
It is painfully obvious that you are a right wing hack.
DO you also play with little boys?
-D.C
Written by Duke Clay
on 8/9/2007
|
Barack didn't trigger a crises. It seems you (Jeff) are a bit on the conservative side and only concerned with making Republican mistakes look less bad than they are.
It is a fact that any president that wanted to catch Osama B.L would be required to go into Pakistan. That is where he is.
Why would you consider that a bad idea? Unless you simply like having a boogie man and would be sad if Osama B.L was actually caught.
You should be ashamed of yourself and your anti-American ideals.
Written by Michael
on 8/9/2007
|
I understand your point about job training in the Oval Office, but seriously, who would have thought a comment would have such an effect. His passion and willingness to fight outweight the stupidity of Pakistani's getting riled up about someone who isnt even in a position of power. He wanted to get a reaction from US citizens, not idiots who misunderstand his statements in foreign countries.
Written by Matt from Boston
on 8/9/2007
|
Written by Aletheia
on 8/9/2007
|
Jeff, judging by the comments made against your article seems that a majority here do not understand that words have consequences. What goes on in policy meetings between leaders and what the "guy on the street" reads in his newspapers or sees on his TV is vastly different in that part of the world. We might see it as just another politician trying to sound tough and find a niche for himself. On the streets of Pakistan them is fighting words. Musharraf has been an ally (as best he can in the situation he is in). He does not control the Badlands. Hopefully Obama will not be POTUS or VP and we won't have to test his theory.
Written by Sharon
on 8/9/2007
|
Your article is profoundly ignorant. Obama framed the issue just right. Pakistan is a tepid ally at best, and Musharref's efforts to aid us are as tightly constrained by Pak's roiled internal politics as by his own inclinations -- inclinations that changed only slightly following the two attempts on his life in December, 2003. ISI, Pak's highly conflicted and politicized intelligence service, has a large and growing Islamist contingent that mirrors the country as a whole. That contingent is staunchly pro-Taliban, anti-Western, and highly tolerant of al Qaeda and other offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't know what rules currently govern our tactical dealings with Pakistan, but as recently as 2004 all military intelligence work in-country and some of CIA's work was closely monitored by ISI. Robert Baer, Mike Scheuer, and others report that this monitoring has been a severe impediment, and given the growing Islamist sentiment throughout the country it is unlikely that the situation will ease any time soon.
Irrespective of whether bin Laden is actually in N. Pakistan, that area is a festering boil of viciously anti-western radicalism, and there is trouble brewing there. Excising the Taliban and al Qaeda from the area is going to be difficult and bloody work, and it is unlikely that any Pakistani government that undertook the task would survive the effort -- and in this context, "survive" is exactly the right word. We're likely to have to do this job ourselves, and Senator Obama's comments merely stated the obvious. That those comments came from a Democrat should surprise no one: we Republicans have disgraced ourselves throughout the current administration and we all seem reluctant to admit it.
All of this is largely academic, however. According to recent attrition figures from Iraq, by the time the next president takes power the ground segment of our military is going to need an extended period of refitting and replenishment. The next president is likely to face some severe limitations of his military options: we're taking about a battalion's worth of casualties a month in Iraq (most of whom return to duty eventually, and the figure appears to be improving), and we're not going to repair that sort of damage overnight. If we want or need to mount significant ground operations in the near future, we may be facing some difficult choices.
Senator Obama is entitled to have his say and in this case he made plain sense. As a Republican who has been disgusted by the reckless foibles of Mr. Bush and his cadre of the clueless, I'm entirely willing to let the Senator compete for my vote. He could hardly do worse than the lot we've got now.
Written by Spence Maher
on 8/9/2007
|
Your article is profoundly ignorant. Obama framed the issue just right. Pakistan is, for any number of reasons, a tepid ally at best, and Musharref's efforts to aid us are as tightly constrained by Pak's roiled internal politics as by his own inclinations -- inclinations that changed only slightly following the two attempts on his life in December, 2003. ISI, Pak's highly conflicted and politicized intelligence service, has a large and growing Islamist contingent, as does the country as a whole, and that contingent is staunchly pro-Taliban, anti-Western, and tolerant of al Qaeda and other offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't know what rules currently govern our tactical dealings with Pakistan, but as recently as 2004 all military intelligence work in-country and some of CIA's work was
Written by Spence Maher
on 8/9/2007
|
I guess Obama's recent debate statements explain the multiple attempts on Musharraf's life that occurred prior to the debate. Richard Armitage allegedly directly threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age, yet this propagandist is caught up on hypothetical scenarios presented by a long shot Democratic hopeful in response to a question posed in a debate. The sad thing is, some may actually buy into this rubbish.
Written by ridiculous
on 8/9/2007
|
A country governed by a military dictatorship whose intelligence services created and fostered the Taliban, whose nuclear scientists are the world's greatest rogue proliferators, and whose western provinces shelter the 911 attackers is not our ally. Pakistan's national values are antithetical to our own, and yet another cynical marriage of convenience -- to another Marcos, another Pinochet, another Diem, another Shah -- represents another instance of the most consistent and far-reaching failure of American foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. People all over the world notice when we only claim to champion virtue.
It appears that you are not a nuanced observer of foreign affairs. Senator Obama is offering more integrity in foreign policy than is contained in the comic-book oversimplifications of any of the Republican candidates and this is not lost on the rest of the world.
Written by Phil Goodman
on 8/9/2007
|
Jeff, now you're just being silly. Obama states the acknowledged policy of the current Administration, and now it's an international crisis? Be real.
Written by David (neither Vitter nor Duke)
on 8/9/2007
|
Your conclusion that Sen. Obama's comments caused the domestic crisis in Pakistan seems to neglect several relevant issues. Perhaps if you had dome some homework on the region you would have discovered that recent polls taken before the Senator's comments show a marked decline in Pakistani support of Gen. Musharraf's administration. The poll, released last week, indicated that Musharraf's aproval rating has fallen from 60% to 34% since June 2006. Additionally, the world bank recently rated Pakistan in the lowest 10th percentile in the category of political stability. I submit that these conditions probably concern the citizens of Pakistan more than comments by an American Presidential hopeful that is trailing in the polls.
Written by Matt Bradley
on 8/9/2007
|
Funny. It sounded like he was describing President Bush towards the end of the article. We already have a President that continues to act like a 'noobie'. I don't see why our country would care so much considering Bush has already proven to be a reckless President over and over.
Written by F.E.S. II
on 8/9/2007
|
The article is correct. People like Obama have no clue how dangerous the world is because they think their only enemies are Republicans. Nobody who is part of the blame America crowd will be president - the American people won't allow it. Fundamentally people know this type of talk is nonsense. Their rejection of it is how Bush beat Kerry but the democrats don't learn they just complain more and talk louder.
Written by Matt
on 8/9/2007
|
I have never heard of you, Jeff, but I am shocked at how little you grasp of U.S. Foreign Policy. Obama's declaration aside, your summation of the situation in Pakistan is incomplete. Clealry, the status quo in Pakistan, and the fate of Musharraf, requires more nuance than your cheap, blanketed assertion the he is an unabashed ally on terror. Read up on the subject, and you'll find Musharraf was a longtime apologist for A.Q. Khan, etc... Please study the history, and practice a more empirical approach to your column rather than pretty-boy punditry.
Written by Ryan M.
on 8/9/2007
|
You did not support that Obama "caused" the crisis - which he did not. His remarks are in step with the current administrations statement to the effect that any nation that supports or harbors terrorists is a potential target. Obama did not state what he would do other than to "act" on the intelligence, and the action was unspecified.
Obama was right.
Written by JJ
on 8/9/2007
|
Sen. Obama has stated what we all feel. The fact is, Pakistan is harboring terroists. That's a well known fact. Sen. Obama is the only one with the balls to come out and say it. Enough political side-stepping, They are after us. We play games, we die.
Written by Rick Van Iderstine
on 8/9/2007
|
Jeff Crouere,
You are a monkey who understands very little about politics of the region you are writing about. If the people that caused 911 are hiding in the mountains of Pakistan why would we not go after them?
Written by Erik Sullivan
on 8/9/2007
|
"This writer is stupid. take his computer away and send him home."
I agree. This guy has no clue what's really going on. Somebody needs to do a little more homework before they jump off the deep end, and it's not Obama.
Written by Chris
on 8/9/2007
|
there's a pretty distinct omission of the myriad domestic political problems plaguing pakistan right now. surely those may have just a little something to do with musharraf's policy decisions...
Written by actual political scientist
on 8/9/2007
|
Oh yeah and Bush with all his experince has done such a great job give it a rest Barack is the only one that is not a politician I like that
Written by Ray
on 8/9/2007
|
I do not think Sen. Obama has anything out of the ordinary. Even our President Bush and other White House officials and several senators and congressmen have played the same tune. So, why are we after Obama? Most of the extremist jihadis are in the vicinity of Pakistan and Afghanistan and sooner or later we have to take action to safeguard our country.
Written by Dee
on 8/9/2007
|
This writer is stupid.
take his computer away and send him home.
Written by Dumb
on 8/9/2007
|
SO WE CAN'T AFFORD "ON THE JOB TRAINING" FOR A PRESIDENT HUH? WELL I THINK THE MARKET'S GONNA BE PRETTY SLIM ON AN EXPERIENCED PRESIDENT. THEY ALL ARE NEW ONCE AND THEY ALL MAKE MISTAKES. AS FOR MR.OBAMA'S STATEMENT, I AM JUST THANKFUL THAT HE WASN'T TELLING TERRORISTS TO "BRING IT ON" AS A CERTAIN GEM THAT WE'VE BEEN SUFFERING FOR ALMOST 8 YEARS HAD DONE IN THE FACE OF WAR. THIS ARTICLE IS A SMEAR JOB. AND IF I HAD IT ON PAPER IT WOULD LINE MY BIRDCAGE.
Written by DAN RADCLIFFE
on 8/9/2007
|
Political candidates? Once Musharraf is gone, Pakistan's nukes are the most likely candidates to be the first nuclear detonation in a U.S. city. The most important issue here is: What (if anything) should we do about Pakistan's nukes? Keeping President Musharraf in office works short term, but he won't live forever.
Written by kerry fox
on 8/9/2007
|
Written by DANNY
on 8/9/2007
|
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has sparked a crisis in