miseducated: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans

See, I have problems with propagandistic statements like this...

He sounds like Bush.

my Administration will increase America's commitment

WHOSE commitment? Attacking another country without international support?

Jon Snow: I doubt he would. He has to look tough on terror and defense while still being able to brag about being against the Iraq war. I don't see anything particularly wrong with it.

So...starting another klstrfk like Iraq is the answer??

You have a politician who stands up and tells the truth, and you're ready to have him pilloried.

I'm seeing another candidate going down the same path that led Bush to his 29% fiasco.

It's time for this country to stop acting like the World Policeman with a Louisville Slugger. I expect less reptilian solutions from the man, what can I say?

gilgigamesh: What's wrong with it is that Musharraf is an embattled man. All he has is the support of the US or the guy is in a grave faster than you can say resurgent Taliban.

Obama was trying to talk tough, but in doing so he ignored the big picture where talking tough has consequences. You have to be extremely deliberate when talking the rhetoric of foreign policy, and Obama showed he doesn't know the game. Not yet, anyway.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that Musharraf saw that a top tier Presidential candidate talking about actually doing something about these people and has decided the only way he can prevent an overthrow that a US attack would cause, he has decided to address the problem directly.

What Obama said certain gave ammunition to someone. It remains to seen who will be side to use it effectively.

gilgigamesh: Coming out and talking tough about doing an end-run around on Musharraf was a mistake, plain and simple.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me that a military dictator, whose mandate is in a country founded purely on theocratic beliefs, has any interest -- outside of falling on the wrong side of American military policy -- in what his sectarian fanatics think about your country?

Your first mistake is assuming that Musharraf functions as a legitimate head of state.

Musharraf is the illegitimately placed military dictator of a country born of theocracy. He is not a legitimate and democratically elected head of state. Strange to me that your country's administration points to other examples of this in Libya, Cuba, and Iran and calls it "tyranny," yet has a gaping blind spot for Pakistan.

Acknowledge that first and maybe we can move on.

Is he white enough?

miseducated: If and when another Republican corporate whore gets elected to the White House, blame yourself.

FTFY.

If you think Hillary(D-ouchebag), or most other Dems are any less CorpWhores than any Republican spawned from the vats of Dow Chemical, you are living in a dream world.

whidbey: So...starting another klstrfk like Iraq is the answer??

There is a difference between a strike and an occupation. Pakistan is a nuclear country with an uneasy peace with its nuclear enemy India. We are sure as hell not going to invade an occupy it, and Obama didn't say anything like that.

He's points were quite the opposite. We need to be willing to sensibly strike anywhere, but also prevent root causes of extremism by helping Pakistan, and to make sure that our military has sensible and cutting edge training.

You have to understand that terrorism is a national concern to a large cross section of the country, whether or not it is to you personally.

whidbey: I'm seeing another candidate going down the same path that led Bush to his 29% fiasco.

It's time for this country to stop acting like the World Policeman with a Louisville Slugger. I expect less reptilian solutions from the man, what can I say?

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the idea that a military solution needs to be part of the answer.

The problem is that he didn't say that his directive is even to stage military intervention in Pakistan. In short, he said that if Musharraf doesn't pull his thumb out of his ass and crack down on terrorist sects in his own country, the idea of American intervention is not off-limits.

I fail to see a problem with this.

Jon Snow: You have to understand that terrorism is a national concern to a large cross section of the country, whether or not it is to you personally

It is, but my problem is trying to sort out the BS this government is trying to pull over our eyes, and the REAL threat.

Remember Communism was the same kind of "threat" that kept the military in the driver's seat and made it difficult to talk about peaceful solutions.

And I'll say it again: if this is truly a concern, it had better damn well be taken to the UN by whoever's President.

SnoreCriminal: If you think Hillary(D-ouchebag), or most other Dems are any less CorpWhores than any Republican spawned from the vats of Dow Chemical, you are living in a dream world.

I don't think that; I wholeheartedly agree.

I say "Republican" because I honestly believe that Hillary is polarizing enough to bounce another Republican into the Oval Office.

I find the idea of a President Hillary Clinton every bit as distasteful as I would President Tom Tancredo or President Rudolph Giuliani.

gilgigamesh: Now can we move beyond the imaginary world of morality in foreign policy, and deal with the world of Realpolitik?

In the world of Realpolitik, placing Pakistan on the "Allies" list and treating Musharraf with kid gloves is dangerous and shortsighted. If his control on fanatics in his own borders is so weak that a stump speech can shake him out of his tree, then it's time to concentrate on those fanatics and leave him out of the picture. He obviously doesn't have the mandate needed to count him or his country as an ally.

miseducated: I find the idea of a President Hillary Clinton every bit as distasteful as I would President Tom Tancredo or President Rudolph Giuliani.

So, your opinion on this:

Why haven't more candidates showed up in the race?

Is this it?? The best both parties can do?

"I'm black and I'm proud."

whidbey: Jon Snow: . I don't think his comments about Pakistan are any sort of negative.

It actually gives the impression he's not out to change the perception of this country, but to futher instill the notion that we talk with our guns. Not to mention he's supporting another un-Constitutional police action.

"Same as the old boss" is what's wrong with that. I'm sick of this country behaving like an empire.

Obama is talking tough about Pakistan because the Taliban and Al-queda / bin Laden are using the northwestern mountainous regions of Pakistan as their safe-haven, and Musharraf isn't doing much of anything about it.

We wouldn't be sending troops into the northwestern regions of Pakistan without a clear goal and endgame - which is the capture or killing of bin Laden and a good deal of the remaining Taliban and Al-Queda operatives. This wouldn't be another Iraq - no overthrowing governments, no nation-building, no semi-permanent military bases - just a simple goal and simple exit strategy.

We seem to have forgotten the original goal of this so-called "War on Terror" and that is the capture or killing of bin Laden and the destruction of his organization and the people who support him (the Taliban). It's time to get back on track.

Fakk: Obama is talking tough about Pakistan because the Taliban and Al-queda / bin Laden are using the northwestern mountainous regions of Pakistan as their safe-haven, and Musharraf isn't doing much of anything about it.

That may no longer be the case. He just made some sort of announcement about going after them.

Fakk: This wouldn't be another Iraq - no overthrowing governments, no nation-building, no semi-permanent military bases - just a simple goal and simple exit strategy.

An action which had goddamn better be a UN resolution with full support, much like Afghanistan.

Jon Snow: That may no longer be the case. He just made some sort of announcement about going after them.

When you say "he" I take it you mean Musharraf?

I hope so. We've given that guy over 5 billion in arms money since 2001. It's time we see something for that 5 billion.

whidbey: Fakk: This wouldn't be another Iraq - no overthrowing governments, no nation-building, no semi-permanent military bases - just a simple goal and simple exit strategy.

An action which had goddamn better be a UN resolution with full support, much like Afghanistan.

I don't doubt that it would be.

Fakk: I don't doubt that it would be.

The precedent has long been set that it's OK to use the US military as the World Police, without any Constitutional or UN accountability. This is my concern.

gilgigamesh: What does Obama accomplish by threatening a guy about doing something everyone knows it is not in his power to do?

Read the text of the speech again, which I have already posted in this thread.

Obama did not threaten Musharraf. Obama said that the option of going over Musharraf's head is an option.

If Musharraf manages to take control of the affairs of his own country, then Musharraf is under no threat of having an end-run conducted around him.

The only party being threatened is the fanatic element in Pakistan. i.e. If Musharraf doesn't handle you, WE WILL.

Get it now? If Perves Musharraf is such a steadfast ally of the US, then why wouldn't he appreciate being given military aid in squashing sectarian violence?

Simple. He doesn't want that. He's teeter-tottering his hold on power between opposing elements; the US which counts him as an ally against al Qaeda, and extremists who aren't dragging him through the streets as long as he leaves them the f*ck alone. Either way, his rule depends only on the consent of two parties that are hell bent on destroying each other. He is a conduit, and nothing more.

This is what's usually called "irrelevant" in most circles.

miseducated: Obama said that the option of going over Musharraf's head is an option.

This was brought to you by the Redundancy Institute for Redundancy.

miseducated: If Musharraf manages to take control of the affairs of his own country, then Musharraf is under no threat of having an end-run conducted around him.

The only party being threatened is the fanatic element in Pakistan. i.e. If Musharraf doesn't handle you, WE WILL.

And Musharraf, not coincedentally, has just admitted that there are terrorists in Pakistan and they have to be isolated and dealt with. Not a galvanizing promise to blow them off the map, but more than I expected.

Like I said, so far all Obama is doing for me is showing just how well he's willing to cave into the same pressures that Bush felt when he was in office. I don't see anyone working to change the dominant paradigm and his statement implies he's willing to sell out.

I'm still quite disappointed in the man, unless he makes up for drinking the kool-aid by enacting a worthwhile domestic policy.

Otherwise, it's "won't get fooled again" all over again.

whidbey: Like I said, so far all Obama is doing for me is showing just how well he's willing to cave into the same pressures that Bush felt when he was in office. I don't see anyone working to change the dominant paradigm and his statement implies he's willing to sell out.

I'm still quite disappointed in the man, unless he makes up for drinking the kool-aid by enacting a worthwhile domestic policy.

Otherwise, it's "won't get fooled again" all over again.

- talks about bringing hostile regimes to the table
- talks about helping Pakistan prevent the root causes of extremism
- talks about fighting the people responsible for terrorist attacks against the US vs. Iraq
- talks about making sure the military is adequately trained to respond to terrorism rather than business as usual


How is that caving to pressure or selling out?

I disagree, whidbey. As much as I despise Bush and basically everything he does, I think a logical and prudent extension of our foreign policy would be to:

1) reinvigorate our presence in Afghanistan and seriously commit to helping NATO stabilize the country, and

2) address the issue of Pakistan/Musharraf. The guy is an unelected militaristic dictator, and he has a truce with the radicals and terrorists on the border in exchange for them not assassinating him. This is the guy we consider an ally, and he literally has made a peace agreement with terrorists in his own country.

The least we could do is support the large moderate democratic movement within Pakistan and oust the bastard. There is rising public sentiment for real elections, and if the moderate majority of the population has some hope of representation, the radicals will lose their voice.

In short, I don't think Obama's sabre rattling hurt anything. In fact, it seems to have lit a fire under Musharraf, in essence warning him that he can't get away with his current game for much longer.

judan: Ace Frehley's Ghost: judan: So, let's say for the sake of argument that someone decides that Obama is not "black enough". Who then would pick up that vote?

Put me down for Samuel L. Jackson.

Get these motherfarkin' insurgents out of this motherfarkin' country!

Addressing the UN:

"We're bombing these motherfarkers... and there's not a GOT DAMN thing you can do about it!"

From TFA: "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," [Michelle Obama] said.

Gee, I wonder what she meant by that?

Jon Snow: How is that caving to pressure or selling out?

Like I said, the test is whether these goals you mentioned are brought to the attention of the international community, or if they're done under the aegis of the US World Police. That's my concern. If he handles it using the mechanism of the UN, with the goal of avoiding unecessary military force, I'd better respect him in the morning...;)

LedZeppelinRule: The least we could do is support the large moderate democratic movement within Pakistan and oust the bastard.

With international support, yes. Another "War Resolution"? NO. We've had enough of that sh*t.

judan: Hang On Voltaire: Yes but is she going to enlist when her husband invades Pakistan?

I don't think he's talking about invading so much as bombing them back to the stone age. Or within the stone age. Bombing the dick out of them, anyway.

She could sign up for the Air Force

With all the good press that Obama and his wife have received this is minor

Well, thats the question you deserve democrats. I dislike Obama. They are both Harvard educated and articulate. For years, the left has encouraged people to question the authenticiy to Black conservatives, so this is what they deserve!

Adman12: I'll bet nobody ever accused Bob Marley of not being "black enough".

I always assumed he faced a certain amount of alienation because of that. I know he was painfully shy when he was young. I thought that was part of it.

But the comparison is apt. Isn't it sad that a couple could overcome racial prejudice and find love, only to have their child face discrimination because of it?

judan: But the comparison is apt. Isn't it sad that a couple could overcome racial prejudice and find love, only to have their child face discrimination because of it?

It's the American way! Give us your free-to-cheap labor immigrants, but don't you dare try and breed with our womens!

"Blackness" is a joke.

No, worse. It's a facile, divisive tactic aimed at consolidating power amongst entrenched groups.

generaltimmy: Well, thats the question you deserve democrats. I dislike Obama. They are both Harvard educated and articulate. For years, the left has encouraged people to question the authenticiy to Black conservatives, so this is what they deserve!

What?! How is going to Harvard going against your "blackness?!"

Cue the "that's racist" boy!

Questioning the authenticity of black conservatives? I'm trying to think of a black conservative I've felt that needed to "authenticate" himself.

Alan Keyes? Did I ever think that he wasn't an "authentic" black? Uh...NO.

Please, for the love of God, provide SOME semblance of an article that shows Democrats requesting "authentication" of a black conservative. I'd really like to see this one.

Fakk: Please, for the love of God, provide SOME semblance of an article that shows Democrats requesting "authentication" of a black conservative. I'd really like to see this one.

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage

South Siiiiyeeeeeeeedah!

Dude he wears a suit and tie and has a respectable steady job and doesn't do drugs and have seven illegitimate children and carry an unliscensed firearm and steal plasma t.v.'s when it rains a lot and the streets flood... and this makes him not black enough? The people publicly asking if hes "black enough" are the racists.

Seriously, if you reverse the situation and had a group of white people questioning whether or not Rudy Giulianni was "white enough" to be our candidate for president then we call them racists, because they are obsessed with uhhh RACE.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Obama's skin is black. So does that mean his character isn't "black" enough?

I'm going to say the same thing I always say when someone tries to bring up Obama's "blackness." Are the KKK going to decide "Oh he's half white? Well then put down that gasoline and that cross. He's all right!" No? Then he's farkin' black enough.

Fakk: Now go back to journalist school and learn how to ask pertinent questions.

This.

An earlier post on this thread has made me realize that FARK must have an "If Samuel L. Jackson were President" Photoshop/Caption contest. Make it so.

I'm black y'all..I'm Black..I'm black y'all (new window) Should be his campaign song.