http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Obama.html

Bush: "I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."

Obama's response: "Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation."

Hahaha. Pwned!!

Whether it's Hillary or Obama, Bush has effectively hobbled one of the few strengths Republicans ever had - foreign policy. They now have zero credibility on that issue and it's nice to see a Dem exploit it.

Beeble, I would hardly call that an attack. Bush was asked a question and Obama did say something along those lines.


and


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

That was from an Obama spokesman named Bill Burton.

And where in there does it say he will attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad?

What I read is that he said if Osama binLaden was in Pakistan and we knew it and Pakistan refused to help get him, then the US would go after him ourselves. Or are you against that? That is much different from just saying outright with no reason that we will invade. (And don't you find it funny that the guy who invaded Iraq for no reason now criticizes someone else for wanting to invade with a reason?)

I also read that Obama was willing to negotiate with our enemies, which hardly counts as an embrace. Bush's policy of pretending our enemies aren't there didn't work, of course, and he eventually negotiated with Il in Korea, but apparently he thinks that if anyone else does something like that, it's "embracing."

Sheesh.

Ahmedinejad is smaller than Khrushchev's left testicle. No big deal in meeting with the chap, methinks.

Pakistan has been helping them for years trying to find them. Obama's comments were more 'they need to do more', which they, obviously can't with all the other stuff they need to concern themselves with.

i'm slightly hesitant about Obama's plans though. US just taking action on foreign soil in an area that is already so unstable, has such a huge army could be extremely counter productive for many nations, even if it doesn't effect the US directly.

Well, I agree, but it is a very tenative plan. There are a couple of big "ifs" there. IF we know for sure where binLaden is, and IF Pakistan refuses to help us get him, then we will go into that area, get binLaden, and get out. It's not like he said he planned to overthrow the Pakistani government or something (which Bush apparently has no problem doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran).

Yes, given all those "if"s, it is qualitatively similar to a statement of "I reserve right to action as commander in chief." Frankness in foreign policy, especially on Cuba, is good but may hurt in election dialogue.

No, Bush was asked a question and then gave a stupid lie as his answer. Second, for Bush to try to criticize anyone over foreign policy would be like Rush Limbaugh criticizing someone over their illicit drug use (which, of course, he does).

Nuance. Not exactly the right-wing's forté.

I think most people are quite confident hes there.
I don't think Pakistan has ever disagreed to not help.

I think the issue will become the level fof cooperation and sadly, I don't think the country would be able to provide it and isn't out of choice, even if deep down inside, they don't want to.

Ofcourse, at that time, the issue becomes .... allow another country to conduct business in your soverign state, which any country out there, would be uncomfortable with.

I agree.

Understand that Obama's comments were not just off the cuff statements he made. He was specifically asked "IF you knew exactly where binLaden was and IF Pakistan refused to help, would you send troops?" He answered yes (as would, I would guess, most Americans including most Republicans).

Now Bush is once more lying and telling people that Obama would unilaterally attack the government of Pakistan and hug all our enemies.

Well, pretty much all of our "experts" conclude that Bin Laden is somewhere in the "tribal region" of Pakistan. Obviously we do not have bin Laden in our hands, nor presumably to the Pakistani's, so one could conclude that Obama would attack Pakistan if he gains the presidency.

I would oppose going into Pakistan, without Pakistani approval, to capture a single person.

I was under the impression that Bush did invade Iraq for a reason. Many of them have been dispelled since, but he did have reasons. Nuclear weapons, free Iraqi's, terrorist sponsor, destabilizing force on world oil prices, etc.

What enemies did Bush pretend weren't there? He invaded two countries. He has engaged, as you admitted, in talks with North Korea. He negotiates with China and Russia (who some consider our enemies).

Furthermore, the U.S. has negotiated with Iran re: Iraq security. I think Bush's criticism regarding them was a bit cavalier, but nonetheless Obama did say he would negotiate with them as well.

Bull crap he basically blamed Iraq for 9-11, tried to say Al Quaida was there and other crap. We had flimsily reasons for going into Iraq and we would have better served to use diplomacy which we hardly did.

So then what right does Bush have to criticize Obama for doing the same thing?

Um, I'm pretty sure Beeble's joke was that: Regardless of what Obama says he will or will not do as far as foreign diplomacy when he is president, Bush doesn't exactly have the kind of record behind him that validates a lick of what Bush says is the "proper" way to handle foreign affairs...

Well... he is the PRESIDENT. But it's not like that counts

Terrific ownage of Bush by the Obama camp. That was said so very well, haha. Brilliant.

Peace,
Mike

lame adj - crippled or physically disabled
duck n - any of numerous wild or domesticated web-footed swimming birds of the family Anatidae, esp. of the genus Anas and allied genera, characterized by abroad, flat bill, short legs, and depressed body.

Besides maybe the "other crap" what exactly, in my previous statement, conflicts with what you just wrote? I never made a value judgment regarding his reasons, I just said he had reasons.

I supported the war in Iraq and now wholeheartedly regret it, for being bamboozled by false intelligence regarding WMDs. Heh, maybe I should support Hillary due to that shared weakness. But then again, I prefer a leader with better judgment than myself. I'd have read the resolution if someone gave me a copy.

Hito (or what on earth do you like to be called nowadays? Heh), I just want to go on record as saying that I have enjoyed you a lot the past couple days now. You still express your political opinion and nail Hillary on what you don't like about her and the mistakes you think she makes in a very smart way, without resorting to what I view as general bashing that I saw before that just really turns me off. I mean this as a compliment.

I assume this was a distinct change you've made (or maybe I'm wrong), and I'm sure some others on this site disagree with me and think Hillary deserves to just be bashed and bashed, but thank you. I appreciate it.

I also thank Groucho for being another terrific political talker and debater who calmly outwits his competitors by using smarts and facts. I can thoroughly enjoy reading his opinions, even if I don't agree with them! I love that.

I just wanted to be able to say that.

Peace,
Mike

Thanks, Mike.

Groucho indeed is a hoot. I elect to drink beer with the chap.

When Obama or Hillary is president, I'm sure you'll be just as deferential to the office.

And no, it doesn't count for much when the PRESIDENT in question has been responsible for the most disastrous foreign policy blunders of any US president.