http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Bush_attacks_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.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Bush_attacks_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.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her “Bush-Cheney lite.”

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/

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.

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).

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

. I think Bush's criticism regarding them was a bit cavalier, but nonetheless Obama did say he would negotiate with them as well.

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

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.

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.

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