NationStates Jolt Archive

now now dont be that way.

if mrs clinton doesnt act positive she wont win. so the march 4th states dont count much for her and are everything for her opponent. its just posturing.

otherwise she would have to throw in the towel now and its still too soon for that. she can throw it in on wednesday.

But shouldn't she be acting like she's going to win? I can't find the article now but there was a breakdown that showed that while Obama did better among voters who decided in the last week and three days before the election, she did better among people who decided on the day of. She's also, apparently going to appear on The Daily Show the night before the election. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/01/clinton-to-appear-on-the-daily-show/) she still stands a chance, really, with the polls neck and neck, that shouldn't she positive about the results instead of gaming them? Changing the story right before hand looks desperate, not positive.

Edit: People have gone back and linked all of your posts together. I'll thank CTOAN and Jacobia for that. Every time you shift the rules of the game people have been throwing your own words back in your face. Hell, you can't even win a debate with yourself. Don't worry I'm done with you. If you can't at least be honest then why debate you? Yes, after 50 pages I started digging on you. Sorry, I even said my NSG rep was impatient with ignorance. Not that you have flamed any posters here (Oh shit, someone compiled all that for you as well.). So yes, hypocrite, liar, and willfully ignorant of when people information right in front of your face.
You know, I can't be arsed to go back through this thread and point out all the posts that would punch huge holes in your above comments, and your various arguments. There has been a bandwagon mentality at work here much to the discredit of those posters. To make claims that I am a liar, dishonest, stupid, ignorant, etc. is totally laughable.

My very first post on this thread was to challenge a blatant lie. The thread has gone downhill since then.

Even your first post on this thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466134&postcount=148)to me was an incorrect statement and you also attempted to put words in my mouth. That is what I have been dealing with. Not just you but many others. People trying to drag other issues that they claim have been unresolved into this thread has also proven a huge unnecessary distraction.

If you want to debate facts and/or banter about the various opinions then great, let's do so. But to continually have posters shout down the opposition leaves me three options.....quit posting altogether, reply somewhat in kind (which I prefer not to do), or ignore the poster (which I have been doing more of lately but again prefer not to).

At any rate, proceed as you wish....I'll survive.

You know, I can't be arsed to go back through this thread and point out all the posts that would punch huge holes in your above comments, and your various arguments. There has been a bandwagon mentality at work here much to the discredit of those posters. To make claims that I am a liar, dishonest, stupid, ignorant, etc. is totally laughable.

Yes, why support your claims now? It would be entirely out of character. "I've still got my quee-een. Look it's here in my hand. You can't get it from me. I've got me quee-een."

You've been proven to be both lying and ignorant. You lied repeatedly about the things Obama said and got caught red-handed. Yes, yes, I know, as long as you run around the room with your queen, we didn't really capture it. For those that want to look at the evidence, it's quite clear.

You've been proven to be ignorant on many points, you asked to see evidence that other candidates said they would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan under the right conditions. They had. The evidence was presented. The only conclusions are that you weren't aware of this or you were lying when you said you weren't aware of it. I believe you were telling the truth, but if you'd like us to believe you were lying, make your case.


My very first post on this thread was to challenge a blatant lie. The thread has gone downhill since then.

True enough. Your contribution has absolutely gone down since then. It wasn't a blatant lie. It was a mistake. Corny later corrected himself. Something you absolutely refuse to do thus we call it dishonest. You can't claim a mistake when you've been corrected and keep banging the same incorrect drum. When you know you're wrong and we know you're wrong, you're just lying and it's the crux of your argument.


Even your first post on this thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466134&postcount=148)to me was an incorrect statement and you also attempted to put words in my mouth. That is what I have been dealing with. Not just you but many others. People trying to drag other issues that they claim have been unresolved into this thread has also proven a huge unnecessary distraction.

Hilarious. I'll tell you what. You've claimed this repeatedly. I challenge you ONCE AGAIN to link to the post were you addressed our claims about swing states with even the first bit of evidence. I don't expect you do it. You've never done it. The best we've ever gotten is, "nuh-uh", "I've got my quee-een."


If you want to debate facts and/or banter about the various opinions then great, let's do so. But to continually have posters shout down the opposition leaves me three options.....quit posting altogether, reply somewhat in kind (which I prefer not to do), or ignore the poster (which I have been doing more of lately but again prefer not to).

At any rate, proceed as you wish....I'll survive.

How about you DEBATE FACTS? Start. We've been begging you to do so for a month. You claimed that Obama used the words "new battlefield". Let's see them. Just that one little "fact" and we'll go from there.

Since you brought up the false accusations. I'm going to post this again. I'll post every one of your fabrications if you like. Come on, CH, let's play.

Here's the quote -

And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way.

The way CH presented it -
And at some point--probably when the missiles have been launched--the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way.

That's what passes for honesty with CH. Make your own judgements.

Presenting evidence to counter a claim isn't 'shouting down.'

Calling bullshit is not 'dogpilling.'

You are not a martyr.

Presenting evidence to counter a claim isn't 'shouting down.'

Calling bullshit is not 'dogpilling.'

You are not a martyr.

I'm so tired of his nonsense. Poor, Canuck, people keep unfairly presenting evidence that his argument is crap. Poor guy. Won't someone cut him a break? Half of his posts are him whining about how unfair it all is and another quarter are about how he doesn't have the time to reply.

Didn't you love the BS about how people keep dragging up arguments he's already addressed. Addressed, accourding to CH is "nooooooooo, it must be wrong. I have declared it so."

As someone said earlier, in five years on NSG, this is the absolute first time I've seen anyone make an argument that no one, not one poster, thought was valid.

So two more days till the big hit. Any predictions, CH?

Clearly, Super Tuesday was NOT a win for Obama. Clearly, Obama can't win the states that matter. So I'm curious. What's the outcome gonna be? Hehe.

So two more days till the big hit. Any predictions, CH?

Clearly, Super Tuesday was NOT a win for Obama. Clearly, Obama can't win the states that matter. So I'm curious. What's the outcome gonna be? Hehe.

I'm a foreigner, so I mightn't fully understand, but surely all the States matter?

I'm so tired of his nonsense. Poor, Canuck, people keep unfairly presenting evidence that his argument is crap. Poor guy. Won't someone cut him a break? Half of his posts are him whining about how unfair it all is and another quarter are about how he doesn't have the time to reply.

Didn't you love the BS about how people keep dragging up arguments he's already addressed. Addressed, accourding to CH is "nooooooooo, it must be wrong. I have declared it so."

As someone said earlier, in five years on NSG, this is the absolute first time I've seen anyone make an argument that no one, not one poster, thought was valid.

That someone was me. And it's remarkable. Even creationists and racists can find people to agree with them. How shitty does your argument have to be to not even reach that standard?

It's worn thin. Am I supposed to feel like a troll because I look shit up and counter arguments? Am I supposed to feel bad because other people think the arguments are lacking as well?

Luizzo, just one page back, listed a ton of resources. Is that the post he addressed? No, instead he whined again how put upon he is and how thick we all are. It's ridiculous.

As to the predicitons, I suspect he tows the campaign line I sited above-it's no longer she needs the big wins she thought she was going to get three weeks ago, now Obama has to win all four states or his tremendous lead isn't legitimate.

I'm a foreigner, so I mightn't fully understand, but surely all the States matter?

No no no, you got it all wrong. Only states you win matter. The rest are kidding themselves.

I'm a foreigner, so I mightn't fully understand, but surely all the States matter?

You pretty much nailed the point. This nonsense that 34 states don't matter because they aren't the right states is one of the biggest issues I have with Hillary.

That someone was me. And it's remarkable. Even creationists and racists can find people to agree with them. How shitty does your argument have to be to not even reach that standard?

It's worn thin. Am I supposed to feel like a troll because I look shit up and counter arguments? Am I supposed to feel bad because other people think the arguments are lacking as well?

Luizzo, just one page back, listed a ton of resources. Is that the post he addressed? No, instead he whined again how put upon he is and how thick we all are. It's ridiculous.

As to the predicitons, I suspect he tows the campaign line I sited above-it's no longer she needs the big wins she thought she was going to get three weeks ago, now Obama has to win all four states or his tremendous lead isn't legitimate.

What's your prediction, CTOAN?

I'm going with 3 out 4 with only one a blowout.

What's your prediction, CTOAN?

I'm going with 3 out 4 with only one a blowout.

I think it's hard to say. It seems like Vermont is for (Obama) lovers. Texas has pulled hard Obama over the last few weeks after being double digits for Clinton. The RCP average for Wisconsin had Obama at +4% before he went on to slam the state at +17%. Right now they have Texas averaged at +1.2%. It would be stupid to assume that it would be proportional (that he'll take the state by 4%), but he does have that caucus at the end of it. It might be a close primary in Texas with the caucus pushing him over the edge.

With Ohio it just seems like it could go either way. I wish I could find that article that broke down voters by when they decided. Clinton pulled with people who decided day of while Obama scored with everyone else short of a month out. Clinton appeared on SNL this weekend and appears on The Daily Show Monday night. Frankly, on SNL she was personable and had a sense of humor about herself. Even when frustrated by McCain, Stewart is still a softy (as he pointed out on Crossfire, his lead in show (was) puppets making crank calls). It might help blunt some of the youth momentum Obama enjoys. I don't really know, I can't make out Ohio.

I do know that if she gets Ohio no matter by what margin the results will be gamed enough that we'll be back in the muck until Pennsylvania.

Rhode Island seems all about Clinton but it hasn't been polled since Obama visited that state in his 'every state matters' strategy. I don't think it will matter in the end, it'll likely end up Clinton but closer perhaps that is being predicted.

Now, if she can sell only winning Rhode Island as 'buyers remorse,' especially after making such a big deal out of the importance of winning 'big' states remains to be seen.

I reserve the right to be wrong on this, it seems like a very close race. Richardson hasn't made an endorsement yet (you got to love this-"The key is I don't think anybody cares," Richardson said of endorsements by politicians. I really wish that guy had made it further in the race) except that he kind of has- (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNrYvAi-WwpRBCdw1Ry9fxZ2as4QD8V5HRNO0)
"I just think the D-Day is Tuesday. We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be in my judgment the nominee," Richardson said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
He's not buying Clinton's new premise. And the likelyhood of her achieving that goal on Tuesday is slim. I think after Tuesday, because it will be closer than what Clinton needs, the fight will go behind doors with rooms filled with smoke.

I'm a foreigner, so I mightn't fully understand, but surely all the States matter?

Sort of. Electoral votes are based off of population, if I remember correctly, so states with larger populations have more votes. In other words, Texas matters more than Nebraska for instance. So more attention is paid to those states with a lot of electoral votes.

'Course I don't take PoliGov until next year, so I could be way off-base on this one.

Sort of. Electoral votes are based off of population, if I remember correctly, so states with larger populations have more votes. In other words, Texas matters more than Nebraska for instance. So more attention is paid to those states with a lot of electoral votes.

'Course I don't take PoliGov until next year, so I could be way off-base on this one.
Well, the electoral college while a lot like delegates isn't exactly the same thing. But both are supposedly put in place to protect the representation of smaller states, otherwise California would more or less get to dictate terms having 13% of the population. It's also why the states that were allowed to move their primaries ahead of super Tuesday were allowed to, to protect smaller states from 'airport campaigning.' And it worked, too. Guiliani tried to skip over those states and instead rely on Florida making the difference and it failed miserably. It might be what sinks Clinton as she conceded the Potomac states as well as Wisconsin and Hawaii in lieu of her 'firewall' of Texas and Ohio (that, as I pointed out now isn't her firewall but an onus for Obama to win now that she doesn't lead in double digits anymore). By having strung out primaries smaller states get to have a say proportional to them being a state rather then them being a large swath of the population.

I agree with that last bit. I really don't think the democratic leadership is going to stand by for a scorched earth strategy particularly when she's got so much potential as a future candidate.

That's the biggest thing that kills me about this. She could have been more long-sighted, she would have just kept on, keeping on. She might have won, but moreso she'd have demonstrated that her purposes were to further the democratic party. Right now, it comes across very much like she feels like anything that gets her closer is worth it. That plays right into everyone's fears.

I'm glad she's appearing on those shows and coming off well. She's a great candidate. I wish she'd done more to humanize her image.

I agree with that last bit. I really don't think the democratic leadership is going to stand by for a scorched earth strategy particularly when she's got so much potential as a future candidate.

That's the biggest thing that kills me about this. She could have been more long-sighted, she would have just kept on, keeping on. She might have won, but moreso she'd have demonstrated that her purposes were to further the democratic party. Right now, it comes across very much like she feels like anything that gets her closer is worth it. That plays right into everyone's fears.

I'm glad she's appearing on those shows and coming off well. She's a great candidate. I wish she'd done more to humanize her image.

She should have done more of that earlier. It's the only thing that has worked for her.

There's absolutely a future for her as a leader in the party as long as she doesn't pull down the cathedral in her attempt for the nomination. As it is when and if she does bow out she has a lot of work to do to bring her supporters back around to Obama for the General election. If she presses it she has to win or she's pretty much thrown out the cache built by her and her husband.

I completely disagree. While Obama wants to champion that he was always against the War in Iraq, he admits that he cannot predict how he would have voted if he was in a position to do so.

The fact that he has consistently voted for continuation of Iraq War funding identical to Senator Clinton speaks volumes.

The fact that Obama declared that he would invade Pakistan's sovereignity speaks volumes. He was chastized for those comments and rightly so. This guy would further destablize the Middle East/Asian situation.


Suggesting that this "kid" is only about 13 now is laughable. The fact that you criticize him for his age is telling.


IF the circumstances warranted it. And we all know they didn't.


The fact that Bush violated the goodwill that Congress gave him on this matter is the true story.


This "kid" made some valid points regarding factual comments made by Obama himself. The very fact that the Obama campaign felt compelled to answer such claims proves that there is validity to those points, and just want to put their spin on it.


First you say he is too young (a kid) and then you say he is "old enough". I guess his " critical thinking skills" are more advanced then you want to give him credit for.


If you don't like the message, you attack the messenger, by blaming his schooling.


Dismissing these claims as "garbage" again demonstrates your inability to refute the charges in an educated manner.


You aren't refuting "the same old arguments", you are attempting to brush aside critical comments regarding your star candidate. You may see him as a peace loving, transformative individual, but so far all I see him as is an opportunist and a slightly dangerous one at that.


You can count on it.


Obama thinks nukes would be appropriate? No doubt. :p


That is technically a misrepresentation of her position, but I am seeing a pattern to your passionate support of your candidate.

That fact is that he admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted.


Given his noted admission, his current position is greatly diluted by that admission and by the fact that he has continued to vote for Iraq War funding. Principles be damned.


Yup, complete fabrication:

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

Bush: Obama will invade Pakistan (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/110208_b_Obama.htm)

Presidential Candidate Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan (http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1)


Yea......George Bush the 3rd!!

BTW, for your education, since you are so concerned about education, if a plane crosses an international border without permission, that is an invasion. If while invading that country you drop bombs, that is an act of aggression/war.

Edit: your candidate supports such actions. BTW, I love the way that Obama uses the same fear mongering of the Bush/Guiliani Republicans.


And he should never have made that statement. It was an extremely dangerous form of politicking.


However, people are less likely to seek negotiations if they believe you to be a hostile person.


No, you were trying to portray the young man as being too young to know anything.


After what happened on 911, lots of blank cheques got written, and many were out of fear and prejudice.


However, you should remember that when Bush asked for that authorization, he was hovering around 70% in job approval ratings. Hard to argue with that huh?


Firstly, I have absolutely no desire to grab your ass. :p

Secondly, one can produce evidence to support or squash a claim, as long as the evidence is indeed factual.


If you think about it long enough, it will become clearer.


Interesting rationale.


Flow out the arguments?


Every candidate has "troublesome qualities". I just don't see what sets your candidate on a higher plateau. As a matter of fact, his inexperience at the federal level and in foreign relations suggests to me that he needs more seasoning before he is ready for prime time.


:D


That is not her position. Get it straight.


Do you have something to back up this claim, or is it just filler to round out your post?

I suppose that the Japanese didn't execute an aerial invasion of Pearl Harbor?

Frankly, I am getting tired of your personal attacks. If you don't want to respond in a responsible manner then don't bother. I won't feel offended by the slight.

Well, here is a hint from the same article, but different news source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html):


Sounds like Pakistan looms large in his "battlefield" plans?

However, Obomba's continued support of funding for the war in Iraq, would lead one to make other assumptions.


Despite our differences in interpretation, I do believe that this ABC News' Senior National Correspondent has similar beliefs as me:

Was Obama proposing an "invasion" of Pakistan? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/08/was-obama-propo.html)

August 07, 2007 1:29 PM


I believe that Obama made a very Bush like comment, which should appeal to the Republicans in the field.

It certainly appealed to Corny six months ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12927469&postcount=1):

He is playing you like a fiddle. He wants to take troops out of Iraq (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)and......


Think about it for awhile, and then think about it some more.

Bottom line:

That is a challenge that I welcome. Because when we do make that change, we'll do more than win a war -- we'll live up to that calling to make America, and the world, safer, freer, and more hopeful than we found it.

threat 12 times
terror/terrorists 37 times
9/11 14 times

I don't think the Busheviks could have written a better speech. Perhaps he enlisted their help?

No, they are his words and he has to live with them. I don't think diplomacy is his strong suit.

These are his EXACT words:


Am I taking him out of context? I really don't think so.

Is there enough room for you on the bandwagon?

Are you denying that those were his exact words (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)?

Well living in denial is not the best place to be. I believe that you will find millions of Americans will agree with me.


What problem?


I assure you that I am not trolling but you certainly are. Add a dash of flamebait to that as well.


I certainly don't need your charity and it certainly would be nice if you could stay on topic and drop the flaming.

It isn't a matter of seeing what I want to see. It is a matter of record what Obama stated. You want to continually make excuses for his careless blunder, and I can understand your passion for your candidate but he is already doing damage and he hasn't even been elected yet.

Obama's Foreign Policy Blunder (http://cornellsun.com/node/23671)




While he does not directly use the word invade, he also uses the words "we will wage the war that has to be won .....on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

What "battlefield" in Pakistan?

What does he mean when he says that "we will wage the war that has to be won ...on to the right battlefield in Pakistan"?

What does that mean to you?

You know, you are just entitled to your opinion, as I am. You don't like my style, well that is your problem.

I do notice that there are several posters on here that believe the best method of debate is to shout down the opposition, or call them stupid or retarded, or in your case "shameful, and disgusting". I find that rather sad, but such is life.

I am certainly not going to stop posting my counterpoints because you don't like them, or don't understand them. So that leaves you two distinct choices....put me on ignore, or don't answer my posts. I really don't care which one you choose.

I do believe that does not count as "posting directly" since I was talking to Corny, not you.

So...basically, what you're saying is that we can't understand your arguments?

Then dumb them down. Make them understandable.



I never said anything about huge groups shouting down opposition. It does happen, but that's not what's happening here. Yes, both Jocabia and CToaN are occasionally insulting and I personally think they should quit that, but they're acting that way because they're so frustrated by you.

All you're doing is posting down arguments and then shaking your head and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when they respond. They've responded with research and specific points, and all you return with is rhetoric and vague arguments, not to mention a load of condescension.

As I said, maybe you should make your arguments understandable and try actually responding to points and research instead of either repeating your "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" or saying you already have when you haven't.

I disagree and I gave supporting evidence.


That thread was set up by the OP to fail. The first post is entirely disingenuous.


The problem is that a multitude of people can suggest that my argument has been refuted, but that does not mean that my argument has in fact been refuted. Obama made a rookie mistake while vying to look like a seasoned major leaguer.

The inordinate amount of name calling is also Bush league and certainly not conducive to progressive debate. It is painfully obvious that the Obama supporters do not take kindly to any criticism of their star candidate. I can understand their passion, but the juvenile taunts of "stupid", "retarded", "idiot", etc. are totally unnecessary.


Of course I can, but when you see dialogue such as the following, what is the point?




I would rather stay here on the Obama thread and chip away at the front runner.

Dem was not paraphrasing what Hillary stated. Dem used quotation marks and added her own thoughts and then attributed those words to Hillary. Now that is disengenuous on her part indeed.


And again you are making stuff up. I never stated that Obama used the word invade and I never stated that Obamas "exact words" were that he would "invade" Pakistan.

Perhaps you are confusing this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)and making it your truth?

By the way, I'm going to repost a bit of your quotes with bolding for emphasis.


And where have we heard words similar to these? Bush stating his goals for Iraq and Afghanistan...that is where. Iraq is coming up to 5 years and Afghanistan is coming up to 7 years..... of turmoil!!

Now all we need is another President to create a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

And of course, the US will offer them all the same goodies that Iraq and Afghanistan have been blessed with.

She wasn't? I think Dem and anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension would disagree. In fact, let's see exactly what Dem said, shall we?



Yes, what would ever give anyone any indication she was paraphrasing. Particularly when while she was saying "in other words", she actually posted an article above that had the actual words.



Perhaps you are confusing this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468310&postcount=240)and making it your truth?

My truth. I'm so tired of your bullshit. Time for A LOT of quotes, since you're pretending like we had an entirely different argument.

What you said - both originally and in reply -









We challenged that specific wording?










(notice how here I state specifically that he is willing to violate their sovereignty but not to attack the country which is exactly what you indicated.)

(in reference to your claims about what an invasion is.)

















(given the utterly obnoxious number of times at that point that you'd been challenged on the use of the term invade, you quoted Obama, got challenged on the use of the word invasion again and replied that that those were his words. As a result you got more challenges that are entirely consistent with the line of conversation.)



You do quote his exact words in reply, but given what Dyakovo said, your post is entirely dishonest. He was referring to your analysis that it means an invasion. And you even address that analysis again at the end.
















The argument was about the fact that you were coloring a military strike, an unlikely military strike only to be conducted precisely and if the situation is absolutely clear, as an invasion. We called you out on your dishonest claims and now you're pretending like we claimed he never suggested he would take any action in Pakistan. You kept claiming you were just echoing his words, but as soon as the quotes were past, you were claiming he said something utterly different.

You don't want to play quote wars in this thread. Since you've been utterly dishonest and it's provable, it's really not in your interest.






Dear God. Considering this entire post, this enormous post, is all about showing how you'll twist words into a pretzel to make them say the opposite of what they mean, I really gotta love this last bit.

He is talking about diplomacy and how violence is not a solution and you read that as aggression?

He makes it very clear in the full context of the speech that he is not talking about entering Pakinstan for any sort of war. To claim otherwise is just, well, astonishing, really. As far as creating a "new" battlefield, he's talking about focusing on Afghanistan with the potential for specific missions across the border, something we've been doing for seven years.

The more I read Obama's speech, the more I think it will ultimately sink him. As I said before, this speech is very Bush like, but perhaps a tad more eloquent. Although Obama has hired a very skilled speech writer, the words are full of traps, and I wonder if Obama is aware of those traps.

But then again, that could just be my twisted thinking.

You seem to be forgetting that it is Obama who wants to portray himself as the anti-war candidate? Yet he is talking about creating a new "battlefield in Pakistan".

Yes, his speech is very Bushlike and when I get some time, I will detail those points in his speech. I truly believe that speech will come back to haunt him if he is the Democrat nominee.

It will be a new one when the US joins the battle.


Actually, the title of his speech is:

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)


I see a lot of recycled rhetoric in this speech, and I am amazed at how Bush like it is. But, it is still about war. How many people have argued on here that you can't win a "War on Terrorism"? Lots.

More later....

I suppose I should have been a little more specific, in that Obama is Bush like in regards to foreign military campaigns, and speeches involving the use of military.

Has much to do with Obama. He is proposing the same tired solutions that failed Bushco.


Then quite sidetracking the debate with your inane comments. :D

Thanks.

Of course it is important, unless you are looking for a President just to read prepared speeches.


It has lots to do with Obama. It appears that he wants to duplicate Bush's folly, except in Pakistan this time.


Scary when you think about huh? Don't let it happen again.


That is what I am seeing with Obama.


Keen grasp of the issues? I don't see Hillary contemplating a "battlefield in Pakistan".


Which really pale in comparison to the actions that are instituted by the President?


Ohhh....Daily Kos....my favourite!!

If you want to compare records, start here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html

and before Obama was in the US Senate:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html


You weren't? It was in his speech:




No, it really sounds like Bush...more of the same....bombs and bullets. Then give them that grassroots democracy. That is if there is any grass or roots left.


So your philosophy is that if they don't want democracy forced on them, then it is okay to force democracy on them anyways, and they will have no right to complain because it is their fault that they chose to be opposed to democracy?


Another excellent choice of web site. While you are browsing that web site, you might want to check out:

Barackl Obama Exposed (http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201)

Or perhaps you would rather read:

The Obama Files (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25166&page=1#c1)


Hold the presses. He wants a hero biscuit for opposing the Iraq War, even though he couldn't even vote on that proposition? He wants to hold that against Hillary, and all the while he wants to propose a new war on the "battlefield in Pakistan"? Whoa, slow down.

Now what did Obama say at the DNC in 2004?


Ahhh, but what did this great orator (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html)recently say about Clinton?


I just love Clinton's reply:

I have used several sources regarding Obama....could you please provide a link that supports your claim that "the other candidates (are) saying the EXACT SAME THING about Pakistan".

Well if all you are getting is window dressing, and I think you are at this point, then you should be concerned?


Yes he is talking about a war that you are already fighting, but he is also defining a new battlefield. I think you should be concerned.


Obama didn't talk about the border of Pakistan. He was very specific in talking about taking the fight to the "battlefield in Pakistan".


Nice to know that we can find some agreement.


I wish I could share your complete faith in Obama, but fact is that I cannot. Bush made a case for invading Iraq and the rest is history. Obama is making a case for invading Pakistan and only time will tell if you or me are correct on our assumptions.


Of course there are Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan, and there were Al Qaeda cells in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is where the US began the War on Terror. And Obama did indeed threaten Pakistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html)to the point that the foreign minister replied:


Other comments from the same source:




More agreement.


Although it was an act of war, the War against Terror is totally unlike Libya and you know it.


Hypothetical question. I was totally against any US invasion of Iraq. Just like I am totally against any US invasion of Pakistan.


However you want to slice it or dress it up, the fact that there is Al Qaeda in Pakistan and to get to them, the US would have to invade if they are going to fulfill Obama's promise:




What I meant by "Obama wants to carry on the tradition", is in reference to Bush making threats against other countries and invading their sovereignity.

Well, to be honest with you, I think Obama is a hopeless idealist or a warmonger by default.

As for a better way, a concentrated peace negotiation between Israel and Palestinians to start off with.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

we're not talking verbatim here, but this is from the facebook debate.

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President.
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Now don't get all nitpicky about "whah, Richardson and Edwards are not candidates anymore..." I even bolded Hillary's statement for you.

These are just the Democrats who have said the exact same thing. I'm looking for the Republicans now.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/17/top11.htm

US presidential candidates see Pakistan as vital to war on terror



By Our Correspondent


WASHINGTON, Oct 16: Senator Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 US presidential election, will redouble efforts to fight terrorism in Pakistan if she is elected.

Senator John McCain, a leading Republican presidential candidate, believes that success in the war against terror in Pakistan is as vital as it is in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama, a Democrat, will insist, not just request, Pakistan crack down on militants. John Edwards, another Democrat, includes Pakistan in a string of unstable countries such as Saudi Arabia, and urges the United States to seek to prevent terrorism in these countries.

Two major Republican candidates, Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, do not believe Pakistan is important enough to get a place in their major foreign policy objectives.

The candidates made these observations in articles they wrote for the Foreign Affairs magazine of the US Council on Foreign Relations, America’s most prestigious think-tank which influences policy makers in both Republican and Democratic parties.

Senator Clinton, who President George W. Bush thinks is the most likely to replace him at the White House in 2008, says that “the forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan,” and not Iraq, “where our military effort must be reinforced”.

While writing about the importance of defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, she claims that terrorists are increasingly finding safe havens in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. “Redoubling our efforts with Pakistan would not only help root out terrorist elements there; it would also signal to our Nato partners that the war in Afghanistan and

the broader fight against extremism in South Asia are battles that we can and must win,” she writes.

“Yet we cannot succeed unless we design a strategy that treats the entire region as an interconnected whole, where crises overlap with one another and the danger of a chain reaction of disasters is real.”

Senator Clinton believes that in Asia, India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world’s most populous democracy.

“As co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, I recognise the tremendous opportunity presented by India’s rise and the need to give the country an augmented voice in regional and international institutions, such as the UN.” Senator McCain is the most sympathetic to Pakistan. “Success in Afghanistan is critical to stopping Al Qaeda, but success in neighbouring Pakistan is just as vital,” he notes.

“We must continue to work with President Gen Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and Al Qaeda maintain in his country.”

He warns that both Taliban and Al Qaeda still have sanctuaries in Pakistan, and the ‘Talibanisation’ of Pakistani society is advancing.

“The United States must help Pakistan resist the forces of extremism by making a long-term commitment to the country.

“This would mean enhancing Pakistan’s ability to act against insurgent safe havens and bring children into schools and out of extremist Madressahs and supporting Pakistani moderates.”

Senator Obama, who stirred a major international controversy two months ago when he said that if elected he will send US troops into Pakistan to attack suspected Al Qaeda hideouts, retains his hawkish attitude towards Pakistan.

“We will join with our allies in insisting — not simply requesting — that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups,” he writes.

“At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region.

“If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.” John Edwards, who contested the 2004 election for vice-president and is now a presidential candidate, notes that Al Qaeda has expanded its reach not only across Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan but even in Europe. “Unsurprisingly, we see radicalism rising today in unstable countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan,” he warns.

“This illuminates the importance of foreign and national security policies that seek to prevent terrorism, not just respond to it.”

So what say you CH?

Hey, did we all miss where CH asked for quotes of other candidates saying the same thing as Obama and me giving it to him? I mean, McCain, Richardson, Clinton, Edwards, et al. being quoted in newspapers and the facebook debate should be evidence enough. This should shut down the Obama the tyrannical Fing nonsense he's been spouting, but I know I'm just hoping against hope. HA HOPE, not false hope, big rallies, and ack ack acck ackack. Does anybody else hear that when Hillay Clinton speaks? And we're going to bring the acckk acckkk acckkk to Texas..." I'm just pointing out how God damn annoying she is on top of her hypocrisy and blind opportunism.

That was fun.

Pakistanis Protest Barak Obama's Invasion Threats (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/pakistanis-protest-barak-obamas.html)

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Listen to the number of times that these people use the word "invade". I also smirked at the comment at the end.....

"this is Bush heavy" (in reference to Obama calling Hillary Bush Lite).

Obama says he might send troops to Pakistan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/)


Like I said...whatever.

Yea!! Let's pour gasoline over the entire area and turn it into an inferno. Let's piss off another 150 Million Muslims..... more then they already are pissed off.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RrXNNDefwGI/AAAAAAAAGS8/2ZIQGyGp4f0/s400/paki+obama3.jpg

If you don't think this is folly then you aren't reading the right script.

I do believe that the stand up comedy position has already been filled.


You are a disagreeable fella huh? And wrong to boot.

'
You mean Faux News? They are a little bit bent over there.

'
Absolutely not.

Yes I am because they are not as you stated the "EXACT SAME WORDS".

As a matter of fact, the quotes do not reflect what Obama said at all.

Well it would be rather difficult to prove that I don't watch Fox News, etc.

It would certainly be difficult to prove to you that I am not a right winger, so you will just have to take my word for it, that I have never voted Conservative in my life. I vote mostly Liberal, but I have voted NDP.


I was just demonstrating that others have a broad definition of the word invade. And it is not that broad a definition if you send troops over another country's border without permission.

I guess you can appreciate the feeling?

I never thought you would abandon the Republicans to become a Democrat.

Hey...it was Obama that was throwing out the whole new war scenario, not me. I am just trying to envisage the full scope of his ideology. It is scary to say the least.

If he does get elected to the White House, I sincerely hope that he turns over those special war powers that Bush received from Congress.

Where did she say that? Link or source of any kind?

Bolding mine.

Not really. I thought it was so ironic that you would post a link that would nicely sum up my argument. Thanks. :)


I have never insisted that Obama said that he would "invade" Pakistan. That is what I called it. Many articles later, including your linked Fact Check refers to Obama's declaration as an invasion.


Well, I could go back through all the barbs thrown at me, and they have been numerous, but why bother. I think I have made a very convincing argument but it would appear that the people that the argument is directed towards don't want to be convinced. They want to stay stuck or as I call it....living in denial.


You used Fact Check to try and skewer Hillary and yet the supporting link actually skewers Obama, by calling it "Obama's Historical Revision".


If you want to live in denial, that is okay. It doesn't mean that everyone has to accept your version of the truth. The people of Fact Check don't see it your way and neither do I.

http://onlyabill.com/2008/01/05/abc-facebook-democratic-debate-january-5-2008/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Facebook.htm

Hillary Clinton:

* Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
* Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)

Barack Obama: Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed.
Barack Obama: FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago.
Barack Obama: Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine.
Barack Obama: The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost.
Barack Obama: Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal.
Bill Richardson: Get bin Laden in Pakistan unilaterally, if Pakistan can't.
Bill Richardson: We have an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aide.
Hillary Clinton: Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago.
Hillary Clinton: Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected.
Hillary Clinton: Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office.
John Edwards: Get bin Laden, period, even if in Pakistan.
John Edwards: Pull 40,000 to 50,000 troops out in 1st year as President
John Edwards: Stop propping the Sunni and Shia up with American lives.

Bush and his comments on Pakistan (http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001)

I'll accept your acknowledgment that you were wrong at any time CH. I just hope we don't have to wait until I'm on my deathbed.

At this point, I am a tad leery of Obama because of his Pakistan statement and a few others, but I do believe that he would be infinitely better than another Republican in the WH. I have been on these boards for 4 years now and have always supported liberal causes. For you to suggest otherwise is not only wrong but inappropriate.

Okay, let's look at what Obama and Clinton stated:


That supports my use of the word invade. It is also not as specific as Clinton's explanation.

I did respond to that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13488964&postcount=687). Her response (note the word probably) is quite different than Obama's and certainly a lot more sensitive than Obama's hostile declaration.

And most certainly, Clinton didn't give a speech detailing a "war we need to win".


Other candidates remarks are no longer an issue since they have dropped out, and they didn't say the "exact same thing".?


To be a liar, someone has to knowingly lie. Now knock yourself out.


But you keep threatening such action. Be my guest.


Because people keep presenting what is their truths doesn't make them truths and are subject to that being brought to their attention.


And that is how?


I always try to stay focused on the meat, but so often all I see is the baloney.


It takes a very good player to capture my queen. She is still in the game.


Another little dig.

I have said this before and will say it again. I didn't have any real concerns about Obama until he talked about invading Pakistan and gave a speech entitled a "war we need to win".

I know the vast majority of posters in this thread are Obama lovers/Hillary haters and I take severe heat because I show dissent. Some would like to shout down the opposition, but as Tom Petty says, "I won't back down".

CLINTON: If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan, I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708020010

and again

You know, I can't be arsed to go back through this thread and point out all the posts that would punch huge holes in your above comments, and your various arguments. There has been a bandwagon mentality at work here much to the discredit of those posters. To make claims that I am a liar, dishonest, stupid, ignorant, etc. is totally laughable.

My very first post on this thread was to challenge a blatant lie. The thread has gone downhill since then.

Even your first post on this thread (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13466134&postcount=148)to me was an incorrect statement and you also attempted to put words in my mouth. That is what I have been dealing with. Not just you but many others. People trying to drag other issues that they claim have been unresolved into this thread has also proven a huge unnecessary distraction.

If you want to debate facts and/or banter about the various opinions then great, let's do so. But to continually have posters shout down the opposition leaves me three options.....quit posting altogether, reply somewhat in kind (which I prefer not to do), or ignore the poster (which I have been doing more of lately but again prefer not to).

At any rate, proceed as you wish....I'll survive.

1. You did say invade and Obama did not.

2. Many of the other candidates said the same thing as Obama. How does this make him Bush-like and them not? Perhaps there is a consensus on the issue, including Hillary.

3. Hillary's use of the word probably is not in regard as to whether she would act against Pakistan. This is why I call you dishonest. Her use of the word probably was in reference to when she would alert Pakistan. "Probably after the missiles were in the air due to the delicate situation with India." She was not saying she wouldn't strike, just when she would let them know. You;re wrong here as well.

4. I've gone back over what I thought was substantative. You keep saying Obama is a hopeless idealist or a war-mongerer. The fact is, the other candidates made the same comments including Hillary. Once again, WRONG!

5. You've flamed others as well. I believe I have been the most cordial to you.

6. You insist he is begging for War against Pakistan when you have not proven, in any of your links, that he intends to provoke such a war. I believe he has a response, not a first strike.

Bill Clinton's law of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

Very interesting.

Beautiful.

Bill Clinton's law of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

Very interesting.

Oh man. Well done Bill.

Bill Clinton's law of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

Very interesting.

Bill Clinton's law of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

Very interesting.
Zing!

Bill Clinton's law of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

Very interesting.

yea it was....

yea it was....

Thank you kind gentleman. These were Bill's feelings before and they should remain in play now. That is unless, of course, he's changed with the political wind like Hillary's vote on the war or her stance on NAFTA. Political opportunism is her MO.

Bill Clinton's law of politics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

Very interesting.

"Did I say hope? I meant vagina."

1. You did say invade and Obama did not.
I never stated that Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan. I clearly believe that what Obama proposes is tantamount to an invasion of Pakistan. I stated clearly that many other news services reported the story as such and many comments echo that same word(s) i.e. "invade", "invasion". When taken in context with his "war we need to win" speech one can clearly surmise that Obama will do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals.

2. Many of the other candidates said the same thing as Obama.
While many other politicians have stated similar policy, none have use the "exact same words" as Obama as you keep pushing. The other politicians included references to diplomacy rather than ratcheting up the idea of unilateral action.

Why didn't the news sources slam those politicians like they slammed Obama's words? Why did Pakistan respond to the words of Obama but not Clinton, Edwards, etc? Could it be that those politicians were not offering the "exact same" solution that Obama was? Could it be that those politicians didn't deliver a speech entitled "the war we need to win", whereby Obama declares:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; .....

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There is a battlefield in Pakistan? There will be a new battlefield in Pakistan is how that reads to me. I am not alone. This is scary stuff and you people want to give him a free pass.

How does this make him Bush-like and them not?
Proposing new battlefields in Pakistan and proposing a unilateral invasion is Bush like.

Perhaps there is a consensus on the issue, including Hillary.
There may be some agreement what needs to be done but the means for resolution for the parties vary widely.

3. Hillary's use of the word probably is not in regard as to whether she would act against Pakistan. This is why I call you dishonest. Her use of the word probably was in reference to when she would alert Pakistan. "Probably after the missiles were in the air due to the delicate situation with India." She was not saying she wouldn't strike, just when she would let them know. You;re wrong here as well.
None of them stated the case like Obama states it here:

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
So, say goodbye to the war in Iraq and say hello to the war in Pakistan.

4. I've gone back over what I thought was substantative. You keep saying Obama is a hopeless idealist or a war-mongerer. The fact is, the other candidates made the same comments including Hillary. Once again, WRONG!
They may have made similar statements, but certainly not as detailed and certainly not the "exact same words" as you continually pushed.

5. You've flamed others as well.
Ah, maybe some mild flavours but my comments certainly pale in comparison to those who are actively seeking to punish me for having an opinion and or facts contrary to their opinion/facts.

I believe I have been the most cordial to you.
I don't find anything cordial about being called a liar, nor is it cordial using a mods as weapons type of approach to these discussions.

6. You insist he is begging for War against Pakistan when you have not proven, in any of your links, that he intends to provoke such a war. I believe he has a response, not a first strike.
Doing what Obama suggests could indeed provoke such a war and like I have posted before, there are others who show concern with Obama's agenda:

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_2.html)

And more about battlefields:

Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html)

Even from an article that you referenced (http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/17/top11.htm):

Senator Obama, who stirred a major international controversy two months ago when he said that if elected he will send US troops into Pakistan to attack suspected Al Qaeda hideouts, retains his hawkish attitude towards Pakistan.

“We will join with our allies in insisting — not simply requesting — that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups,” he writes.

And while I don't like the title of this article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13491)and not thrilled about the source, the essence of the situation regarding Pakistan is close to my feelings on the issue. My personal opinion is that Obama's war policy is an extremely dangerous contemplation.

I never stated that Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan.
The fact that Obama declared that he would invade Pakistan's sovereignity speaks volumes.

I stated clearly that many other news services reported the story as such and many comments echo that same word(s) i.e. "invade", "invasion".Please link us to these "many other news services".

The other politicians included references to diplomacy rather than ratcheting up the idea of unilateral action.Obama's remarks on this subject have always included more references to diplomacy than unilateral action.

There will be a new battlefield in Pakistan is how that reads to me.Maybe if you're writing the word "new" in magic marker on your computer screen and completely ignore the fact that there are already engagements occuring in western Pakistan.

Why didn't the news sources slam those politicians like they slammed Obama's words? Why did Pakistan respond to the words of Obama but not Clinton, Edwards, etc? Could it be that those politicians were not offering the "exact same" solution that Obama was? Could it be that those politicians didn't deliver a speech entitled "the war we need to win", whereby Obama declares:

about 3/5 of the criticism of Obama you posted was from Fox News, who are not known for their credibility.

There is a battlefield in Pakistan? There will be a new battlefield in Pakistan is how that reads to me. I am not alone. This is scary stuff and you people want to give him a free pass.


Proposing new battlefields in Pakistan and proposing a unilateral invasion is Bush like.
You are the one who proposes that the battlefield is new. We all think it's a pretty damn old battlefield. In fact, Afghanistan and the Border regions of Pakistan are the same battlefield. When we chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they ran into Pakistan. Obama just wants to strike at them there.

There may be some agreement what needs to be done but the means for resolution for the parties vary widely.

They may have made similar statements, but certainly not as detailed and certainly not the "exact same words" as you continually pushed.
"exact same words" was the wrong way to put it, but hillary said she will contact Pakistan when the missiles are already in the air. Do you think she will magically pull them back if Musharref does not give his permission? Do you think Obama does not intend to inform Musharref of any strikes we make in his country? Is there a reason you think Hillary's strike is less likely to ignite a war than Obama's? or is it just a "feeling"?

Ah, maybe some mild flavours but my comments certainly pale in comparison to those who are actively seeking to punish me for having an opinion and or facts contrary to their opinion/facts.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

I don't find anything cordial about being called a liar, nor is it cordial using a mods as weapons type of approach to these discussions.


Doing what Obama suggests could indeed provoke such a war and like I have posted before, there are others who show concern with Obama's agenda:

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_2.html)

And more about battlefields:

Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html)

Even from an article that you referenced (http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/17/top11.htm):



And while I don't like the title of this article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13491)and not thrilled about the source, the essence of the situation regarding Pakistan is close to my feelings on the issue. My personal opinion is that Obama's war policy is an extremely dangerous contemplation.

Maybe you should use sources you personally find credible, and not just ones that happen to agree with you?

Maybe you should use sources you personally find credible, and not just ones that happen to agree with you?

Mayhaps a terrible accident has robbed him of this very discernment?

Mayhaps a terrible accident has robbed him of this very discernment?

This reminds me of back a few pages when he posted a youtube of a bunch of news shows who said the word "invade" when referring to Obama's policy, and 3/5 of them were fox news. I said "what, do you find fox news credible" and he said "of course not." apparently missing the point entirely.

None of them stated the case like Obama states it here:


So, say goodbye to the war in Iraq and say hello to the war in Pakistan.

Jesus, you're a broken record. Making the hundreds of millions in aide conditional =/= invading, =/= 'regime change' =/= new fucking war.

I don't know why you think you can keep peddling this nonsense.

There is a battlefield in Pakistan? There will be a new battlefield in Pakistan is how that reads to me. I am not alone. This is scary stuff and you people want to give him a free pass.
Look, I can find a bunch of people who think that Clinton is a communist. That doesn't make it true.

It's not scary at all. The fact that he won't blindly support an oppressive regime if fucking refreshing, since that is the exact thing that has been undermining our support in the Middle East, that for all our talk about freedom and democracy we'll uphold the least free, the least democratic for political expediency or cheap oil. It has been pointed out repeatedly that all the major candidates including Clinton are willing to make the strikes that Obama talks about. The fact that she will tell him after the missiles are in the air is really of no consequence to the over all action.

You have been shown repeatedly the bulk of the speech is diplomatic action. In fact, of the two Democratic candidates, Obama is the only one willing to meet with 'hostile' regimes without preconditions. And you want to paint him as the more aggressive?

The facts are these-

All of the candidates would strike under the same conditions-actionable intelligence on high value al Queada targets.

Obama won't give money to people who suppress democracy. (NO-this is not the same as invading. NO-this is not the same as regime change. NO-this is not the same as forcing US style democracy.) Support of represive regimes is what undermines our support in the Middle East. As far as we know Clinton would continue the status quo-attacking high value targets on actionable intelligence (like what happened last January, and in accordance with her statements quoted in this thread) and supporting with dollars a regime regardless of its practices.

Obama is willing to sit down with hostile regimes. Clinton is not.

Obama has laid out an extensive diplomatic plan that makes up 90% of the speech. You somehow have decided that the proportion is different. You have been shown again and again that text.

To paint it as a 'new' war or an 'invasion' is dishonest. It goes beyond opinion because it requires that you get your own set of 'facts' that are not supportable.

We already played the pundit game, there are people who agree with Obama, there are pundits (FOX News commentators and kids on YouTube...)who agree with you. This does not make your case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
I never stated that Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
The fact that Obama declared that he would invade Pakistan's sovereignity speaks volumes.

For clarification. When Obama declared that he would invade (my choice of word) Pakistan, I fully realize that he never used the word "invade".

Please link us to these "many other news services".
I posted some of these before:

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Compliation of Fox, MSNBC, and ABC

President Obama Would Invade Pakistan (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/08/01/president-obama-would-invade-pakistan/)

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

And I like this one from FactCheck:

Obama's Historical Revision (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)

Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda.

Obama's remarks on this subject have always included more references to diplomacy than unilateral action.
Even if that were true, the fact remains that a lot of that diplomacy means squat if the US actually invades Pakistan

Maybe if you're writing the word "new" in magic marker on your computer screen and completely ignore the fact that there are already engagements occuring in western Pakistan.
What engagements are "already engagements occuring in western Pakistan"?

What engagements are "already engagements occuring in western Pakistan"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/29/ST2008022901364.html

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/02/03/afx4607470.html
Fact Check (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html)
Furthermore, as Obama also noted, that's pretty much what the U.S. did recently. On Feb. 1, several news organizations quoted official sources saying that a CIA airstrike in Pakistan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, who once was 4th on the "most wanted" list of a military anti-terrorism task force. The strike, incidentally, was by a remote-controlled Predator drone using missiles, not by crewed bombers.

He would be a good foreign policy maker, he was born in Hawaii, and knows the world outside the US.

What engagements are "already engagements occurring in western Pakistan"?
Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan, because the Taliban is unhindered by the imaginary line dividing the two countries.

Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan, because the Taliban is unhindered by the imaginary line dividing the two countries.
Source please that "Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan".

Wait, these are your sources?


I posted some of these before:

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Compliation of Fox, MSNBC, and ABC
Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, the Republican candidates...? Why gosh, what reason would they have to equivocate Obama...

President Obama Would Invade Pakistan (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/08/01/president-obama-would-invade-pakistan/)
Nevermind that his language is barely acceptable here as credible, lets see how he describes himself-
f you take some time to poke around the web, the consensus opinion among professional pundits and amateur wannabes like myself is that the Republicans don't really stand a chance in 2008. They talk of veto-proof majorities and Congressional landslides as if they are a given.
Consider myself underwhelmed. An AOL blogger who no longer has his blog. (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/bloggers/scott)

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

Yay! Bordering on credible! Congratulations! Except it still misrepresents what he said and since it was written in August of 2007 it doesn't take into account that we've now had two such strikes.

And I like this one from FactCheck:

Obama's Historical Revision (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)

Which, once again, only clarifies that Obama omitted the strikes as part of his plan during an old debate, it does not support your equivocation.



Even if that were true, the fact remains that a lot of that diplomacy means squat if the US actually invades Pakistan
Good news! No one is advocating an invasion.

Source please that "Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan".

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p01s01-wosc.html

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - Mullah Muhammed Omar, the Taliban's one-eyed leader, eluded capture when American bombs ended his fundamentalist regime in Afghanistan in 2001. But a new report of his location is stirring an international uproar.

A captured Taliban spokesman says Mr. Omar is hiding in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Balochistan Province, under the protection of Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Abul Haq Haqiq, also known as Dr. Mohammad Hanif, made the statements in a video-taped interrogation released by Afghan intelligence on Wednesday, following his arrest while crossing from Pakistan into the Afghan province of Nangarhar.

So this high level Taliban operative was captured while moving from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/1207_pakistan_afghanistan_border.html
The Taliban has a robust sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal areas and this is a major factor in their resurgence. The tribal areas have historically been "no-go" zones for the Pakistani military, and the Pakistan armed forces have not performed well in operations there since 2004. More disturbing is the panelists' observations that since 2005, Pakistan appears more ambivalent about pressuring the Taliban and rolling back their protected zone.

The Taliban we chased out of Afghanistan is hiding in the hills in Pakistan, where the Pakistani government refuses to flush them out.

This is obviously a refocusing on the first war we got ourselves into, the war in Afghanistan.

True enough. I've heard about those strongholds since day one, practically, and that's why the Iraq War got me so confused. Sure, Afghanistan was a stronghold of terrorism and Al Q, but so were these areas in Western Pakistan, along the border to that very same country. Not taking them out was completely flabbergasting to me, as they were the most likely hiding places of the terroristgroups leaders.

I certainly hope Obama wins in the coming days, not just because I like his image, but because his opponent is too horrible a possibility to contemplate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p01s01-wosc.html

So this high level Taliban operative was captured while moving from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/1207_pakistan_afghanistan_border.html

The Taliban we chased out of Afghanistan is hiding in the hills in Pakistan, where the Pakistani government refuses to flush them out.

This is obviously a refocusing on the first war we got ourselves into, the war in Afghanistan.
Those links do not support your claim that "Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan".

I never stated that Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan. I clearly believe that what Obama proposes is tantamount to an invasion of Pakistan. I stated clearly that many other news services reported the story as such and many comments echo that same word(s) i.e. "invade", "invasion". When taken in context with his "war we need to win" speech one can clearly surmise that Obama will do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals.

Sure, unless you read what he actually said and know what the word invasion means. According to your earlier definition we've already invaded. Or did you forget those little gems?


While many other politicians have stated similar policy, none have use the "exact same words" as Obama as you keep pushing. The other politicians included references to diplomacy rather than ratcheting up the idea of unilateral action.

This is why we keep saying you're lying. Because how is this not a lie? Nearly his entire speech is about diplomacy. You've been clinging to excerpts some of which contain the diplomacy you deny. You even quote one below. Those couple of lines are echoed by nearly the entire party. This doesn't count as ignorant anymore. You've adequately demonstrated that you're aware of what he said and just continue to lie about it.



Why didn't the news sources slam those politicians like they slammed Obama's words? Why did Pakistan respond to the words of Obama but not Clinton, Edwards, etc? Could it be that those politicians were not offering the "exact same" solution that Obama was? Could it be that those politicians didn't deliver a speech entitled "the war we need to win", whereby Obama declares:

Or, could it be that Obama is a front runner. They didn't really care when he said it. It's become bigger news as he's become more obviously the frontrunner.


There is a battlefield in Pakistan? There will be a new battlefield in Pakistan is how that reads to me. I am not alone. This is scary stuff and you people want to give him a free pass.

I thought you said those words actually appear in his speech. Once again rather than simply admit your error, you squirm. How about just a tad bit of straight talk, buddy? Why don't you make the slightest effort and being honest? Because this isn't debate.



Proposing new battlefields in Pakistan and proposing a unilateral invasion is Bush like.

Again, no thinking person could read it that way. None. And you don't either. That's why everyone is annoyed. He talks about a POTENTIAL for a unilateral bombing if a distinct Al-Qaeda target appears and that Al-Qaeda target did appear and they were bombed unilaterally a month ago.



There may be some agreement what needs to be done but the means for resolution for the parties vary widely.


None of them stated the case like Obama states it here:


So, say goodbye to the war in Iraq and say hello to the war in Pakistan.

Weren't you just saying earlier that Obama wasn't proposing diplomatic solutions, just unilateral invasion. Now you quote him talking about diplomacy. Seriously, do you even read this stuff before you post it or are you hoping we won't?



They may have made similar statements, but certainly not as detailed and certainly not the "exact same words" as you continually pushed.

Dear God. This is where you're going to claim victory? That they didn't use the "exact same words"? You also claimed that Obama used the words "new battlefield in his speech. I notice we haven't seen that quote. One doesn't have to wonder why.



Ah, maybe some mild flavours but my comments certainly pale in comparison to those who are actively seeking to punish me for having an opinion and or facts contrary to the facts.

Keep pretending you're a martyr. Other people have made cases for Hillary and been applauded for it. You're not being "punished" for having a contrary opinion. You're being destroyed in a debate because your argument is terrible and unsupported.





I don't find anything cordial about being called a liar, nor is it cordial using a mods as weapons type of approach to these discussions.


Doing what Obama suggests could indeed provoke such a war and like I have posted before, there are others who show concern with Obama's agenda:

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_2.html)

And more about battlefields:

Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html)

Even from an article that you referenced (http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/17/top11.htm):



And while I don't like the title of this article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13491)and not thrilled about the source, the essence of the situation regarding Pakistan is close to my feelings on the issue. My personal opinion is that Obama's war policy is an extremely dangerous contemplation.

Keep banging on that drum. You know what they say about a person who keeps doing the exact same wrong thing and expecting different results. Yet you just keep being dishonest about what that speech really says. Making utterly false claims like it's a "new battlefield" and an "invasion" and expecting ANYONE to agree with you. You've been on the pulpit for a month and so far, not one single convert. I truly wonder if you're not actually against Hillary. Certainly, you've not represented her well and you're biggest argument has been surrounding something that Hillary admitted she'd do as well.

While many other politicians have stated similar policy, none have use the "exact same words" as Obama as you keep pushing. The other politicians included references to diplomacy rather than ratcheting up the idea of unilateral action.

Even if that were true, the fact remains that a lot of that diplomacy means squat if the US actually invades Pakistan



So which is it? How are we supposed to take this seriously, YOU seriously? You say that it's okay that other candidates suggest the same military actions because they advocate diplomacy as well. Then you say that "diplomacy means squat" when it's Obama so you continue this inane line of argument.

Sadly, I know we've got 8 more months of this drivel, because no amount of debate, no amount of evidence has altered your understanding of this in the slightest. Same arguments. Same debunked statements. Same nonsents. 8 months.

You know there are people out there who discuss the candidates without entirely hyperbolizing everything they say? It's called a discussion. A debate. Wouldn't it be nice to engage in that for once? Hmmm.... why don't you try it?

Jesus, you're a broken record. Making the hundreds of millions in aide conditional =/= invading, =/= 'regime change' =/= new fucking war.

I don't know why you think you can keep peddling this nonsense.


Look, I can find a bunch of people who think that Clinton is a communist. That doesn't make it true.

It's not scary at all. The fact that he won't blindly support an oppressive regime if fucking refreshing, since that is the exact thing that has been undermining our support in the Middle East, that for all our talk about freedom and democracy we'll uphold the least free, the least democratic for political expediency or cheap oil. It has been pointed out repeatedly that all the major candidates including Clinton are willing to make the strikes that Obama talks about. The fact that she will tell him after the missiles are in the air is really of no consequence to the over all action.

You have been shown repeatedly the bulk of the speech is diplomatic action. In fact, of the two Democratic candidates, Obama is the only one willing to meet with 'hostile' regimes without preconditions. And you want to paint him as the more aggressive?

The facts are these-

All of the candidates would strike under the same conditions-actionable intelligence on high value al Queada targets.

Obama won't give money to people who suppress democracy. (NO-this is not the same as invading. NO-this is not the same as regime change. NO-this is not the same as forcing US style democracy.) Support of represive regimes is what undermines our support in the Middle East. As far as we know Clinton would continue the status quo-attacking high value targets on actionable intelligence (like what happened last January, and in accordance with her statements quoted in this thread) and supporting with dollars a regime regardless of its practices.

Obama is willing to sit down with hostile regimes. Clinton is not.

Obama has laid out an extensive diplomatic plan that makes up 90% of the speech. You somehow have decided that the proportion is different. You have been shown again and again that text.

To paint it as a 'new' war or an 'invasion' is dishonest. It goes beyond opinion because it requires that you get your own set of 'facts' that are not supportable.

We already played the pundit game, there are people who agree with Obama, there are pundits (FOX News commentators and kids on YouTube...)who agree with you. This does not make your case.

Have you noticed he refuses to reply to us now? But hey, he's still got his queen, right? This really is a sad excuse for political banter. It truly is. You've seen him debate properly. So have I? I can't fathom why he would be treating this subject so lightly. Yes, lightly. Because if he was taking it seriously he'd recognize his argument is so ludicrous that even if it were remotely true, he'll have painted this so red, no one will touch it for the next year.

about 3/5 of the criticism of Obama you posted was from Fox News, who are not known for their credibility.

...


Maybe you should use sources you personally find credible, and not just ones that happen to agree with you?

No credible news sources would bother with such an obviously false accusation.

Wait, these are your sources?

Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, the Republican candidates...? Why gosh, what reason would they have to equivocate Obama...
I guess you missed the clips from ABC, MSNBC, and CBS that all used the words invade and/or invasion of Pakistan? Trying to narrow it down and minimize the scope does not make it so.

Nevermind that his language is barely acceptable here as credible, lets see how he describes himself-
However minimizing you want to be, did you consider what he had to say?

Pakistan is jihadi central with more madrassas than any other country in the world. People who become radicalized go there for training to spread their vision of the caliphate far and wide, how much of a quagmire that would be is incomprehensible. They have lands there that are not governable and the Pakistani army will not touch.

Perhaps a few facts have slipped by Obama and his staff:

Musharraf is in a shaky position and would be overthrown as soon as we crossed the border;

Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal that could be shipped anywhere; Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror, albeit one that is not as strong as we'd like;

Yay! Bordering on credible! Congratulations! Except it still misrepresents what he said
That is your opinion. Many others differ. Obama has clearly laid out his policy and it is much more aggressive then you admit.

and since it was written in August of 2007 it doesn't take into account that we've now had two such strikes.
And how many strikes will Obama make before he strikes out? Do you think that Obama wrote this speech just to look tough so that he could win votes, or does he honestly stand by those words? If he stands by those words, then he will see a much higher calibre of debate from the Republicans on this issue if he wins the nomination.

Which, once again, only clarifies that Obama omitted the strikes as part of his plan during an old debate, it does not support your equivocation.
I totally disagree:

Obama's Historical Revision

Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda.
Obama: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan’s President Pervez] Musharraf.

Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, which left a much tougher impression. Then, he said in general that “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” As for Pakistan specifically, he said that if elected he would go in unilaterally to “take out” al Qaeda if the U.S. has “actionable intelligence” and Musharraf refuses to act:
Obama (Aug. 1): I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

In those remarks Obama clearly did say he would go in, and do it unilaterally, under the conditions stated. Whether or not that would occur “immediately” is a matter of interpretation, but the nature of “actionable intelligence” is such that it can become quickly outdated and must be acted upon very quickly. For example, in the capture of Saddam Hussein U.S. forces responded within “a couple of hours” of receiving “actionable intelligence” of his whereabouts, according to a briefing by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq at the time.

And by saying in general that he “will not hesitate” to use military force against terrorists, Obama left the impression that he wouldn’t wait long for Musharraf to act first, if he consulted him at all. It’s worth noting that Pakistan won’t even admit that terrorists have safe havens to attack. "There is no al Qaeda or Taliban safe haven in Pakistan," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a weekly briefing earlier this month. That directly disputes the recent finding of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that Obama cited in his speech, when he said "al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan” and is training new recruits there.

As for saying he would "work with" Musharraf, in his Aug. 1 speech Obama did talk of diplomatic efforts aimed at Pakistan. He said he would make current U.S. aid “conditional,” cutting it off unless the country shows progress in evicting foreign fighters. That sounds to us more like a threat than a promise of cooperation. Obama also said he would offer additional aid to “help Pakistan invest” in the border regions where al Qaeda and Taliban forces are said to operate. But he did not specify whether this additional aid would come before or after U.S. military action there.

Good news! No one is advocating an invasion.
Obviously our opinions differ. The warning bells are clearly ringing.

I totally disagree:

Obama's Historical RevisionCould you point me towards the parts that spoke of an invasion? All I could find was him stating he'd use military force.

I guess you missed the clips from ABC, MSNBC, and CBS that all used the words invade and/or invasion of Pakistan? Trying to narrow it down and minimize the scope does not make it so.


However minimizing you want to be, did you consider what he had to say?




That is your opinion. Many others differ. Obama has clearly laid out his policy and it is much more aggressive then you admit.

We've ALREADY crossed the border. It's ALREADY happened. How can you possibly justify making false predictions about things that have already occurred?

And how many strikes will Obama make before he strikes out? Do you think that Obama wrote this speech just to look tough so that he could win votes, or does he honestly stand by those words? If he stands by those words, then he will see a much higher calibre of debate from the Republicans on this issue if he wins the nomination.

Good. High calibre debate is a good thing. Going after the people who attacked us is something we already claim to be doing. According to McCain, he'll follow them to hell. You think he wants to start a debate about whether or not we should bomb them in the mountains of Pakistan?



I totally disagree:

Obama's Historical Revision




Obviously our opinions differ. The warning bells are clearly ringing.

First, it doesn't say what you claim. It protests what he said, which they're right about. The certainly don't claim he said invasion nor do they support such a claim if they did make it.

More FactCheck.org.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html

Clinton claimed, "Last summer [Obama] basically threatened to bomb Pakistan." Obama denied that: "I never said I would bomb Pakistan."

He's right. What he really said on Aug. 1, 2007, was this: "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Furthermore, as Obama also noted, that's pretty much what the U.S. did recently. On Feb. 1, several news organizations quoted official sources saying that a CIA airstrike in Pakistan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, who once was 4th on the "most wanted" list of a military anti-terrorism task force. The strike, incidentally, was by a remote-controlled Predator drone using missiles, not by crewed bombers.

In other words, they agree that he did not threaten action against Pakistan, since he wasn't protesting the bombing part but the part where it would be against Pakistan. Factcheck.org's stance is that he DID NOT threaten action against Pakistan. They also PLAINLY say that similar action to what Obama proposed has already occurred. YOUR source agrees with us.

Could you point me towards the parts that spoke of an invasion? All I could find was him stating he'd use military force.

Well, factcheck.org doesn't ever suggest he said he would invade. They are talking about how it was revision for him to state it the way he did. It certainly supportable that he said upon actionable intelligence that wasn't being acted upon by the Pakistani President, we'd attack those targets. That's pretty immediate. And that's what they're addressing. That's why none of their argument is about invasion. Our friend, CH, is trying to mislead us again.

Well, factcheck.org doesn't ever suggest he said he would invade. They are talking about how it was revision for him to state it the way he did. It certainly supportable that he said upon actionable intelligence that wasn't being acted upon by the Pakistani President, we'd attack those targets. That's pretty immediate. And that's what they're addressing. That's why none of their argument is about invasion. Our friend, CH, is trying to mislead us again.I know that, I just want CH to read what he posted to realize that it doesn't say what he claimed.

I know that, I just want CH to read what he posted to realize that it doesn't say what he claimed.

Would you stop punishing him for holding a different opinion than you? Making him focus on facts and things that the candidates and his sources actually say is blatantly unfair. Knock it off.

Would you stop punishing him for holding a different opinion than you? Making him focus on facts and things that the candidates and his sources actually say is blatantly unfair. Knock it off.:(

I guess you missed the clips from ABC, MSNBC, and CBS that all used the words invade and/or invasion of Pakistan? Trying to narrow it down and minimize the scope does not make it so.

The onese where they were talking to or about Republican presidential candidates or Condi Rice? Yeah, I noticed and mentioned them, thanks.

However minimizing you want to be, did you consider what he had to say?
I considered it. It had no more weight than your nonsense. Here's a hint, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it authority. Because you can find an admitted 'wannabe' doesn't magically make your premise true. I read what he said, it was poorly stated and as ill-supported as your premise. I addressed his authority since you provided him as a source there has to be a reason we're supposed to accept his opinion as fact. There wasn't one. If you look at the topics that he writes about, you might as well have quoted Rush Limbaugh.

Again, we can find people who will agree that Clinton is a communist. Does that make it true?




That is your opinion. Many others differ. Obama has clearly laid out his policy and it is much more aggressive then you admit.
He has not. It is not an opinion. It is a clear distortion.


And how many strikes will Obama make before he strikes out? Do you think that Obama wrote this speech just to look tough so that he could win votes, or does he honestly stand by those words? If he stands by those words, then he will see a much higher calibre of debate from the Republicans on this issue if he wins the nomination.
Oh no! The Republicans will challenge him?!?! Why, I thought they'd just roll over for him, but now you're telling me that they'll challenge him...well, gosh golly gee whiz! That's a whole new ballgame...no, wait, it's not. It's totally expected. It's going to take a whole lot of bullshit for the Republicans to try and paint his position as more aggressive than theirs. He already pointed out that he's not talking about anything 'new.' The facts agree. They also agree that as far as strikes go he's not talking about anything different than anyone else. No one is saying that if they have actionable intelligence on high value al Queada targets that they're just going to let it go. No one. Not if they plan on getting elected.


I totally disagree:

Obama's Historical Revision




Obviously our opinions differ. The warning bells are clearly ringing.
Once again, you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. In this case you've conflated the two.

I never stated that Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan. I clearly believe that what Obama proposes is tantamount to an invasion of Pakistan. I stated clearly that many other news services reported the story as such and many comments echo that same word(s) i.e. "invade", "invasion". When taken in context with his "war we need to win" speech one can clearly surmise that Obama will do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals.

You said invade! YOU!!!!!! Yes, he should do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals. Strategic strikes are "what we did 10 years ago" according to Hillary and she has no problem with it. So she didn't use the words verbatum but she did advocate attacking Pakistan on "actionable intelligence" and not telling them until the missiles are fired. This means she will act unilaterally and without permission from Pakistan. You can twist and turn all you want, but no one besides you is reading it that way. NO ONE! That either means you are fricken brilliant or we're all idiots.


While many other politicians have stated similar policy, none have use the "exact same words" as Obama as you keep pushing. The other politicians included references to diplomacy rather than ratcheting up the idea of unilateral action.

You're the one who pushed for the "exact same words" argument. Can you see the 6 in your left hand and the half dozen in the other. All of those other politicians, including Hillary, advocated the same thing. It doesn't matter the exact words used.

Why didn't the news sources slam those politicians like they slammed Obama's words? Why did Pakistan respond to the words of Obama but not Clinton, Edwards, etc? Could it be that those politicians were not offering the "exact same" solution that Obama was? Could it be that those politicians didn't deliver a speech entitled "the war we need to win", whereby Obama declares:



There is a battlefield in Pakistan? There will be a new battlefield in Pakistan is how that reads to me. I am not alone. This is scary stuff and you people want to give him a free pass.

How it reads to you is key here. There have already been incursions by our forces across the border of Pakistan This is not new. If the leaders of Pakistan will not act we will. The media may not have gone after the other candidates for a variety of reasons. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that they all said the same thing, it only matters if the media makes a big deal about it? got it.


Proposing new battlefields in Pakistan and proposing a unilateral invasion is Bush like.

See where the others expressed the same sentiments.


There may be some agreement what needs to be done but the means for resolution for the parties vary widely.


None of them stated the case like Obama states it here:


So, say goodbye to the war in Iraq and say hello to the war in Pakistan.

For Christ's sake. He didn't say he was going to start a full out war in Pakistan. This is you sensationalizing the issue. He said he would strike primary Al Queada targets in Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan. How is this different than Hillary stating she'd do the same thing except she'd notify them just before the missiles splashed down? Neither one of them are asking for permission to attack are they?


They may have made similar statements, but certainly not as detailed and certainly not the "exact same words" as you continually pushed.

I'll agree to the terms for "exact same words." However, let's now say they paraphrased each other all right? Either way, look at the 6 in your left and half dozen in your right and decide which is more.


Ah, maybe some mild flavours but my comments certainly pale in comparison to those who are actively seeking to punish me for having an opinion and or facts contrary to their opinion/facts.

Because they, as I have, point out clear instances where you are wrong. Then you, being so intellectually honest, try and twist and turn what they say. When you are given direct quotes you have to deal with them. You don't so people call you dishonest and a liar.


I don't find anything cordial about being called a liar, nor is it cordial using a mods as weapons type of approach to these discussions.

Pardon me, do you see a post in moderation from me?


Doing what Obama suggests could indeed provoke such a war and like I have posted before, there are others who show concern with Obama's agenda:

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_2.html)

And more about battlefields:

Sparks Fly Over Obama's Pakistan Speech (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html)

Even from an article that you referenced (http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/17/top11.htm):



And while I don't like the title of this article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13491)and not thrilled about the source, the essence of the situation regarding Pakistan is close to my feelings on the issue. My personal opinion is that Obama's war policy is an extremely dangerous contemplation.

Obama is willing to protect America against terrorists who would harm us. Dismantling their command structure is a valuable tool. See my above bolding in response.

Those links do not support your claim that "Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan".

I believe they do, but here's some more sources.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34947 (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34947)

After fighting the Taliban in Pakistan's rugged border areas as part of support for the U.S. -led ‘war-on-terror' in Afghanistan, Musharraf signed a truce with the ‘scholars' in June and followed it up this month with a comprehensive pact under which the Taliban would stop launching attacks across the border on U.S. and allied troops.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,464487,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,464487,00.html)
Commander Mamabaidullah switches off the ignition and alights from his pickup truck onto the desert plain surrounding Spin Boldak, a chaotic Afghan town that borders Pakistan. Followed by four of his Kalashnikov-toting men, he walks briskly toward a graveyard where scores of bodies lie buried beneath mounds of dirt and clay. Mamabaidullah, who is responsible for guarding this stretch of frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, stops at the row closest to the border. With evident pride, he explains that they contain the corpses of Taliban militiamen killed by Afghan soldiers during a battle last month. These Taliban, Mamabaidullah says, had been hiding in Pakistan and returned to attack a government office in a nearby village. Officially, 40 Taliban died in the ensuing firefight, though a source present at the encounter and an official in Kabul both put the death toll, which included seven Afghan soldiers, nearer to 90. It was one of the Taliban's biggest defeats since they were toppled in December 2001. Mamabaidullah had these bodies buried here to send a message "that if anyone comes into Afghanistan to kill or make problems, they'll end up like this."

So the Taliban are launching attacks on Afghanistan across the border.

Please, if you have a problem with these sources be a little more in depth about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
I never stated that Obama stated that he would invade Pakistan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
The fact that Obama declared that he would invade Pakistan's sovereignity speaks volumes.

For clarification. When Obama declared that he would invade (my choice of word) Pakistan, I fully realize that he never used the word "invade".


I posted some of these before:

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4&feature=related)

Compliation of Fox, MSNBC, and ABC

President Obama Would Invade Pakistan (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/08/01/president-obama-would-invade-pakistan/)

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

And I like this one from FactCheck:

Obama's Historical Revision (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)




Even if that were true, the fact remains that a lot of that diplomacy means squat if the US actually invades Pakistan


What engagements are "already engagements occuring in western Pakistan"?

I don't like the source but.... (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/uspa-m09.shtml) I'd say read it and weep, but it's more like read it and ignore.

Source please that "Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan".

CTOAN provided a few more and I'll provide the one I gave you again. WARNING: In this link you may find your "new" battlefield argument destroyed.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/uspa-m09.shtml

Those links do not support your claim that "Many of the engagements that are occurring as a part of the war in Afghanistan are actually occurring in Pakistan".

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/uspa-m09.shtml

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19383.htm

CIA Attacks Inside Pakistan Without Approval

Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

By Joby Warrick and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers

19/02/08 "Washington Post" -- -- In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/paki-a29.shtml

n an aggressive new step, the US military shelled and destroyed targets across the Afghan border inside Pakistan on Sunday. While it has received scant coverage in the American and international media, the attack foreshadows more extensive US cross-border operations that have the potential to further destabilise Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s uncertain grip on power.

The US-led coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement declaring that Pakistan had given permission for an attack on Taliban positions inside its borders. Occupation forces in the eastern province of Paktika used artillery and mortar fire to destroy six positions—three inside Afghanistan, and three across the border in Pakistan. According to the statement, at least 12 insurgents were killed in the barrage.

Pakistani officials emphatically denied giving approval for the assault. Military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad declared, “There was no attack [from Pakistan], no firing from our side of the border. And there was no permission asked by them or given by us.” Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam dismissed further US claims that Washington had an understanding with Islamabad to allow cross-border attacks as “speculative and fabricated”.

Late Monday, the US military belatedly conceded that no permission had been given. “We regret the miscommunications in this event,” Brigadier General Joseph Votel, deputy commander of NATO’s eastern region, declared. However, he made no apology for the attack itself and gave no guarantee that US forces would not engage in further cross-border attacks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23381466/

Suspected missile attack kills 10 in Pakistan
Security official says U.S. forces fired at house near Afghan border

Slide show
A supporter of slain opposition leader Bhutto flashes a victory sign while celebrating their win in the general elections in Nawabshah

Pakistan votes
Scenes from around Pakistan as its citizens vote in crucial parliamentary elections.

more photos
Timeline


Slide show: Traumatic history

Video

An unlikely ally
Pervez Musharraf turned Pakistan from pariah to partner after the 9/11 attacks. Produced by NBC's Sarah Ford.

NBC News Web Extra
World Blog: Islamabad, Pakistan
Pakistan elections: fingers crossed
The Taliban: Kidnapping, Inc. 
Pakistan’s 'party on wheels'
Most popular
• Most viewed • Top rated • Most e-mailed
10 scariest escapes from death
CNBC Business Nation: Are you insured?
Ousted mayor makes no apologies for lingerie photos
U.S. says it launched missile attack in Somalia
Clinton, Obama battle ahead of key races
Most viewed on msnbc.com
‘Resurrected,’ but still wallowing in red tape
2 men freed in child death bite-mark cases
Clinic accused of reusing syringes sued
Bionic turtle? Caregivers seek prosthetic flipper
India to spend $13 million to protect tigers
Most viewed on msnbc.com
CNBC Business Nation: Are you insured?
Cheaters beware! Tool sniffs out plagiarism
10 scariest escapes from death
Find college scholarship money online
Ousted mayor makes no apologies for lingerie photos
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 12:10 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008

WANA, Pakistan - A missile struck a house in a Pakistani region known as being a safe haven for al-Qaida early on Thursday, killing 10 suspected militants including foreigners, intelligence officials and residents said.

The attack took place near Kaloosha village in the South Waziristan tribal region on the Afghan border.

We've all linked you to many articles regarding attacks in Pakistan. Will you admit you are wrong now CH? You keep talking about many other who would agree with you. Yet, no one has come here to defend you. It's pages upon pages of you deflecting claiming "many others" will agree with you. Notice, The Cat Tribes made good points and we accepted and debated them. You are a different choice we have made. You are being willfully ignorant, obtuse, and just a plain fool. If I had to I'd rip the queen out of your hands because she's DEAD!

I don't like the source but.... (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/uspa-m09.shtml) I'd say read it and weep, but it's more like read it and ignore.

It's impossible. Impossible, I tell you. I said it would create a complete destabilization of Pakistan and it will. Just give it time. Wait... how long's it been? 5 years? Hmmmm... well, in that case, it will cause complete destabilization in 7 years but only if Obama wins. Fear Obama!!!

So, another big Tuesday looms ahead during the Primaries. Texas (a big one), Ohio (another big one), Rhode Island and Vermont. Who's going to win, and who's going to lose? Personally I think Hillary needs to win Texas and Ohio by a large margin in order to stay in the race, however I do not see her doing that. Here is how I see the race as of right now.

Democrats
Texas: Obama
Ohio: Obama
Rhode Island: Obama
Vermont: Clinton

Republican
Texas: Huckabee
Ohio: Mc. Cain
Rhode Island: Mc. Cain
Vermont: Huckabee

Vermont is the only state in US I can barely stand.

Because of all the rich people who live there?

Because of all the rich people who live there?

I was referring to the Congressman they elected. And generally because they don't follow the far-right trend the rest of America does in politics.

Vermont is the only state in US I can barely stand.

So you're pissed that they go against the grain?

No, I think it's good they do.

I was referring to the Congressman they elected. And generally because they don't follow the far-right trend the rest of America does in politics.

So you're pissed that they go against the grain?

GAH! See, this is what happens when I forget how to read. I thought you meant that you hated Vermont more than any other state. I now think you mean the opposite- or do you?

Yes. I think Bernie Sanders is probably the best politician in Washington.

GAH! See, this is what happens when I forget how to read. I thought you meant that you hated Vermont more than any other state. I now think you mean the opposite- or do you?

Ok, and getting back on topic now....

No, I think it's good they do.

GAH! See, this is what happens when I forget how to read. I thought you meant that you hated Vermont more than any other state. I now think you mean the opposite- or do you?

Ok, and getting back on topic now....

Yes, yes, you're right. I was going to comment in my first post but I was sucked in by the Vermont.

Really, I think your predictions are good and I'll be surprised if it all goes differently.

I think that the two big ones are too close to call, but I'll make a prediction anyway-

Texas by way of the caucus at the end, but only barely goes to Obama.

Ohio breaks for Clinton in a last minute rally, maybe by as much as 5-7%.

Vermont for Obama

Rhode Island for Clinton but closer than imagined.

And because of that, the Democratic party will see its shadow and we get 6 more weeks of primary.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

The Republican primary is moot.

So, another big Tuesday looms ahead during the Primaries. Texas (a big one), Ohio (another big one), Rhode Island and Vermont. Who's going to win, and who's going to lose? Personally I think Hillary needs to win Texas and Ohio by a large margin in order to stay in the race, however I do not see her doing that. Here is how I see the race as of right now.

Democrats
Texas: Obama
Ohio: Obama
Rhode Island: Obama
Vermont: Clinton

Republican
Texas: Huckabee
Ohio: Mc. Cain
Rhode Island: Mc. Cain
Vermont: Huckabee

Naw. Here's what I think
Texas: Clinton, Huckabee?
Ohio: Clinton, McCain
Rhode Island: Obama, McCain
Vermont: Obama McCain

Hillary seems to do very well in large states. I still have hope, though...

crickets, crickets!

I was referring to the Congressman they elected. And generally because they don't follow the far-right trend the rest of America does in politics.

So, you are saying they are the radical left of the right coast? :p

I say Rhode Island is the only state Clinton takes, Texas is the only state Huckabee takes, and both of them quit Wednesday. Get your bets in now!

Anybody who thinks that Huckabee will take Texas needs a reality-check: Huckabee is running something like 17 points behind McCain in polling. You just can't make that up.

That said, all the recent polls in Texas and Ohio are trending Clinton, so my predictions:

McCain sweeps all 4 Republican contests.
Clinton takes Ohio, Rhode Island, and a majority of the vote in Texas
Obama takes Vermont and a majority of delegates in Texas.

It isn't if miracles > math. :p

My high school report card says:no.

The Republican primary is moot.


It isn't if miracles > math. :p

Jesus, you're a broken record. Making the hundreds of millions in aide conditional =/= invading, =/= 'regime change' =/= new fucking war.

I don't know why you think you can keep peddling this nonsense.
I am not the one peddling such "nonsense". That would be Obama himself.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Bottom line as far as I can see it, is that aid will be conditional upon the recipients doing as the US dictates, and if they don't then the US will ACT!!

And Pakistan can't just be an ally, it must be a "democratic ally":

As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
And take notice of these words:

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.
More tough talk:

As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won't outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons.
In other words, referencing a Bushism, "you are either with us or against us"?

It's not scary at all. The fact that he won't blindly support an oppressive regime if fucking refreshing, since that is the exact thing that has been undermining our support in the Middle East, that for all our talk about freedom and democracy we'll uphold the least free, the least democratic for political expediency or cheap oil.
The US has a history of supporting/installing oppressive regimes, until they tire of them or they are no longer useful to the main objective. Sure, it is great to think that the US would no longer support such regimes, but what to do in the case of Pakistan? Saddam was removed from power and what have you got now? Increased worldwide terrorism, more hatred towards America and an Iraqi people who want the US troops out, so that they can enjoy their LESS secular "democracy". I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that all the major candidates including Clinton are willing to make the strikes that Obama talks about. The fact that she will tell him after the missiles are in the air is really of no consequence to the over all action.
Despite the similarities of certain candidates on this issue, it appears that Obama stands alone with his new doctrine of waging "the war we need to win".

You have been shown repeatedly the bulk of the speech is diplomatic action. In fact, of the two Democratic candidates, Obama is the only one willing to meet with 'hostile' regimes without preconditions. And you want to paint him as the more aggressive?
His speech details an extremely aggressive approach to what many believe an unwinnable war. Perhaps if Obama wants to accomplish global peace and harmony, he should reverse the steps that he proclaims to offer such a dividend.

The facts are these-

All of the candidates would strike under the same conditions-actionable intelligence on high value al Queada targets.
All with different criteria, and none of the other candidates have such a detailed war plan.

Obama won't give money to people who suppress democracy. (NO-this is not the same as invading. NO-this is not the same as regime change. NO-this is not the same as forcing US style democracy.) Support of represive regimes is what undermines our support in the Middle East.
I disagree and I detailed my reply above.

As far as we know Clinton would continue the status quo-attacking high value targets on actionable intelligence (like what happened last January, and in accordance with her statements quoted in this thread) and supporting with dollars a regime regardless of its practices.
"As far as you know" = your opinion. As far as supporting the existing regime may be the absolute best way to continue at this time? What are the alternatives if the Musharraf regime collapses?

Obama is willing to sit down with hostile regimes. Clinton is not.
That is simply not true. Clinton would meet with them after some preconditions had been satisfied. I believe that Obama's plan is somewhat naive.

Obama has laid out an extensive diplomatic plan that makes up 90% of the speech. You somehow have decided that the proportion is different. You have been shown again and again that text.
I have read it 3 times now and watched it twice and I certainly see more talk about war, rhetoric, patriotism, terrorism, etc.

security = 15
peace = 1
threat = 13
diplomacy = 7
terror(ism)(ist) = 46
war = 32
9/11 = 14
aid = 4
battlefield = 3
weapons = 12
nuclear = 11
America = 52
Pakistan = 13

To paint it as a 'new' war or an 'invasion' is dishonest. It goes beyond opinion because it requires that you get your own set of 'facts' that are not supportable.
I think the world has seen enough of Bush like tactics. Millions of people around the world were decrying the invasion of Iraq before it happened. People are leery of further rhetoric regarding Pakistan.

We already played the pundit game, there are people who agree with Obama, there are pundits (FOX News commentators and kids on YouTube...)who agree with you. This does not make your case.
And ABC, MSNBC, and CBS reporters etc. It wouldn't matter how many people would agree with me, you will remain opposed, you will defend your cause. If calling me dishonest helps you feel comfortable supporting your cause, so be it. Time will tell who the dishonest people are.

I am not the one peddling such "nonsense". That would be Obama himself.


Bottom line as far as I can see it, is that aid will be conditional upon the recipients doing as the US dictates, and if they don't then the US will ACT!!

And Pakistan can't just be an ally, it must be a "democratic ally":


And take notice of these words:


More tough talk:


In other words, referencing a Bushism, "you are either with us or against us"?


The US has a history of supporting/installing oppressive regimes, until they tire of them or they are no longer useful to the main objective. Sure, it is great to think that the US would no longer support such regimes, but what to do in the case of Pakistan? Saddam was removed from power and what have you got now? Increased worldwide terrorism, more hatred towards America and an Iraqi people who want the US troops out, so that they can enjoy their LESS secular "democracy". I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.


Despite the similarities of certain candidates on this issue, it appears that Obama stands alone with his new doctrine of waging "the war we need to win".


His speech details an extremely aggressive approach to what many believe an unwinnable war. Perhaps if Obama wants to accomplish global peace and harmony, he should reverse the steps that he proclaims to offer such a dividend.


All with different criteria, and none of the other candidates have such a detailed war plan.


I disagree and I detailed my reply above.


"As far as you know" = your opinion. As far as supporting the existing regime may be the absolute best way to continue at this time? What are the alternatives if the Musharraf regime collapses?


That is simply not true. Clinton would meet with them after some preconditions had been satisfied. I believe that Obama's plan is somewhat naive.


I have read it 3 times now and watched it twice and I certainly see more talk about war, rhetoric, patriotism, terrorism, etc.

security = 15
peace = 1
threat = 13
diplomacy = 7
terror(ism)(ist) = 46
war = 32
9/11 = 14
aid = 4
battlefield = 3
weapons = 12
nuclear = 11
America = 52
Pakistan = 13


I think the world has seen enough of Bush like tactics. Millions of people around the world were decrying the invasion of Iraq before it happened. People are leery of further rhetoric regarding Pakistan.


And ABC, MSNBC, and CBS reporters etc. It wouldn't matter how many people would agree with me, you will remain opposed, you will defend your cause. If calling me dishonest helps you feel comfortable supporting your cause, so be it. Time will tell who the dishonest people are.

Are you ready to admit that there are already battles going on in Pakistan, thus making your "new" battlefield in Pakistan argument null and void? Myself and many others have posted links to sites proving there are already attacks across the border in Pakistan. We've also provided quotes from other candidates, Hillary included, who said they would attack Pakistan if there were "actionable intelligence." They said they would do it before consulting Pakistan. Hillary Clinton even went as far as to say she'd tell them AFTER the missiles were in the air. It's like me punching you in the face and then saying, "it's okay I did that right?" So let's count the ways you've been proven wrong and note that the "many that agree" have not come to your aid.

1. All of the candidates expressed the desire to attack inside Pakistan in one way or another. This proves that Obama is no more Bush-like than the others.

2. There are already attacks across the border in Pakistan so your "new" argument fails

3. Whether it's half over here and 6 over there, what they said is essentially the same.

Edit: I'm going to bed so please don't mistake me for hiding from CH.

Vermont is the only state in US I can barely stand.

It's the maple syrup, right?

:D

We've ALREADY crossed the border. It's ALREADY happened. How can you possibly justify making false predictions about things that have already occurred?

First, it doesn't say what you claim. It protests what he said, which they're right about. The certainly don't claim he said invasion nor do they support such a claim if they did make it.

More FactCheck.org.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html

Clinton claimed, "Last summer [Obama] basically threatened to bomb Pakistan." Obama denied that: "I never said I would bomb Pakistan."

He's right. What he really said on Aug. 1, 2007, was this: "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Furthermore, as Obama also noted, that's pretty much what the U.S. did recently. On Feb. 1, several news organizations quoted official sources saying that a CIA airstrike in Pakistan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, who once was 4th on the "most wanted" list of a military anti-terrorism task force. The strike, incidentally, was by a remote-controlled Predator drone using missiles, not by crewed bombers.

In other words, they agree that he did not threaten action against Pakistan, since he wasn't protesting the bombing part but the part where it would be against Pakistan. Factcheck.org's stance is that he DID NOT threaten action against Pakistan. They also PLAINLY say that similar action to what Obama proposed has already occurred. YOUR source agrees with us.
I disagree with your analysis:

Summary (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)

Seven Democratic presidential candidates appeared Aug. 7 in a nationally televised forum at Chicago's Soldier Field, sponsored by the AFL-CIO. Once again, we found some claims that were wrong and others that were questionable.

Sen. Barack Obama attempted to revise his own earlier remarks about invading Pakistan, claiming: "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan’s President Pervez] Musharraf." But the record shows Obama's original remarks were much tougher than that.

Obama's Historical Revision

Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda.

Obama: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan’s President Pervez] Musharraf.

Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, which left a much tougher impression. Then, he said in general that “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” As for Pakistan specifically, he said that if elected he would go in unilaterally to “take out” al Qaeda if the U.S. has “actionable intelligence” and Musharraf refuses to act:

Obama (Aug. 1): I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

In those remarks Obama clearly did say he would go in, and do it unilaterally, under the conditions stated. Whether or not that would occur “immediately” is a matter of interpretation, but the nature of “actionable intelligence” is such that it can become quickly outdated and must be acted upon very quickly. For example, in the capture of Saddam Hussein U.S. forces responded within “a couple of hours” of receiving “actionable intelligence” of his whereabouts, according to a briefing by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq at the time.

And by saying in general that he “will not hesitate” to use military force against terrorists, Obama left the impression that he wouldn’t wait long for Musharraf to act first, if he consulted him at all. It’s worth noting that Pakistan won’t even admit that terrorists have safe havens to attack. "There is no al Qaeda or Taliban safe haven in Pakistan," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said at a weekly briefing earlier this month. That directly disputes the recent finding of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that Obama cited in his speech, when he said "al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan” and is training new recruits there.

As for saying he would "work with" Musharraf, in his Aug. 1 speech Obama did talk of diplomatic efforts aimed at Pakistan. He said he would make current U.S. aid “conditional,” cutting it off unless the country shows progress in evicting foreign fighters. That sounds to us more like a threat than a promise of cooperation. Obama also said he would offer additional aid to “help Pakistan invest” in the border regions where al Qaeda and Taliban forces are said to operate. But he did not specify whether this additional aid would come before or after U.S. military action there.

So, another big Tuesday looms ahead during the Primaries. Texas (a big one), Ohio (another big one), Rhode Island and Vermont. Who's going to win, and who's going to lose? Personally I think Hillary needs to win Texas and Ohio by a large margin in order to stay in the race, however I do not see her doing that. Here is how I see the race as of right now.


MY Picks..

Democrats
Texas: Obama
Ohio: Clinton
Rhode Island: Obama
Vermont: Clinton

Republican
Texas: McCain
Ohio: McCain
Rhode Island: Mc. Cain
Vermont: McCain

I am not the one peddling such "nonsense". That would be Obama himself.


Bottom line as far as I can see it, is that aid will be conditional upon the recipients doing as the US dictates, and if they don't then the US will ACT!!
My god, your tunnel vision is simply amazing. I don't even have to refute you, in your first bolding you showed yourself to be wrong. It's comedic at this point.

And Pakistan can't just be an ally, it must be a "democratic ally":
Because supporting an oppressive regime is exactly what's been wrong with our foreign policy. However, he explicitily says that he will only act against high value al Queada targets on actionable intelligence.. Something you've been repeatedly shown the other candidates will do as well. That you continue to peddle this snake oil is, frankly, baffling.


And take notice of these words:


More tough talk:


In other words, referencing a Bushism, "you are either with us or against us"?
Actually, it talks about how he won't outsource our diplomacy...you know talk to people. Not a Bush strong suit and not something Clinton is willing to do without 'preconditions.'

So which is it? Clinton won't even sit at the table unless these people comply but somehow she isn't dictating terms, but Obama will sit down and talk. But somehow Obama is forcing things on other countries and Clinton isn't. You've twisted yourself in knots on this.


The US has a history of supporting/installing oppressive regimes, until they tire of them or they are no longer useful to the main objective. Sure, it is great to think that the US would no longer support such regimes, but what to do in the case of Pakistan? Saddam was removed from power and what have you got now? Increased worldwide terrorism, more hatred towards America and an Iraqi people who want the US troops out, so that they can enjoy their LESS secular "democracy". I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
He is not advocating overthrowing Pakistan. And if Musharrif is overthrown and we're supporting him, you think that's a good situation?


Despite the similarities of certain candidates on this issue, it appears that Obama stands alone with his new doctrine of waging "the war we need to win".
Yeah...with diplomacy and the acknowledgment that that alone won't do the job.


His speech details an extremely aggressive approach to what many believe an unwinnable war. Perhaps if Obama wants to accomplish global peace and harmony, he should reverse the steps that he proclaims to offer such a dividend.


All with different criteria, and none of the other candidates have such a detailed war plan.
Like fighting poverty and promoting education.

But in regards to actual military strikes, indistinguishable.


I disagree and I detailed my reply above.


"As far as you know" = your opinion. As far as supporting the existing regime may be the absolute best way to continue at this time? What are the alternatives if the Musharraf regime collapses?
Bhuto? The alternatives are a lot worse if we were the ones helping suppress them.

You're invited to prove me wrong about Clinton. We know your willingness to do so, so I won't hold my breath.


That is simply not true. Clinton would meet with them after some preconditions had been satisfied. I believe that Obama's plan is somewhat naive.
So, once again, this isn't 'forcing American standards' but saying we won't pay for it is?


I have read it 3 times now and watched it twice and I certainly see more talk about war, rhetoric, patriotism, terrorism, etc.

security = 15
peace = 1
threat = 13
diplomacy = 7
terror(ism)(ist) = 46
war = 32
9/11 = 14
aid = 4
battlefield = 3
weapons = 12
nuclear = 11
America = 52
Pakistan = 13
I have a friend who is writing a new story using only the words and frequency found in the story The Lottery. That does not mean that his new story is the true meaning of The Lottery.


I think the world has seen enough of Bush like tactics. Millions of people around the world were decrying the invasion of Iraq before it happened. People are leery of further rhetoric regarding Pakistan.
Good news! He's not advocating invading Pakistan.


And ABC, MSNBC, and CBS reporters etc. It wouldn't matter how many people would agree with me, you will remain opposed, you will defend your cause. If calling me dishonest helps you feel comfortable supporting your cause, so be it. Time will tell who the dishonest people are.
Reporters either talking about or to Republican candidates or current administration. If the people that 'agree' with you make the same weak arguments, then yes, I will continue to disagree with you. I already listed people that disagree with you. The game is old and your record is broken.

I disagree with your analysis
Nuh-UHHH!

I disagree with your analysis:

Summary (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)





Obama's Historical Revision
So, Factcheck.org is only 'right' once? Is that your position? Because in a later entry they clearly state what we've been saying this entire time (and we dispute what you think this one is saying, but in order for your conclusion to be true about this one, you have to dismiss the second one, so what is it?)

Nuh-UHHH!

Dammit, he's broken out the big guns. We're going M.A.D. for sure!

My high school report card says:no.

Miracles aren't aloowed in school. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. :p

I don't like the source but.... (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/uspa-m09.shtml) I'd say read it and weep, but it's more like read it and ignore.
That article is from May 2002, and any activity was denied by the Pentagon. Anything more current?

That article is from May 2002, and any activity was denied by the Pentagon. Anything more current?

Oh you're seriously kidding, right?

Miracles aren't aloowed in school. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. :p

But I went to a private religious school...

I was referring to the Congressman they elected. And generally because they don't follow the far-right trend the rest of America does in politics.

wow self-timewarp

And Vermont is awesome: they elect socialists...well Bernie Sanders.

So, another big Tuesday looms ahead during the Primaries. Texas (a big one), Ohio (another big one), Rhode Island and Vermont. Who's going to win, and who's going to lose? Personally I think Hillary needs to win Texas and Ohio by a large margin in order to stay in the race, however I do not see her doing that. Here is how I see the race as of right now.

Democrats
Texas: Obama
Ohio: Obama
Rhode Island: Obama
Vermont: Clinton



I'd like to see a better split here. I want Hillary to stay in the race, so these two can continue to snipe at each other. The longer they stay at it, the more people will realize that they're just politicians -- and nothing else.

But I went to a private religious school...

You poor bastard. :(

You poor bastard. :(

Well, really it was junior high at a Catholic school. I was agnostic at the time, that was good times...

Well, really it was junior high at a Catholic school. I was agnostic at the time, that was good times...

I can imagine. :)

I've got McCain sweeping and Clinton taking Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, but not with the numbers she needs.

Note to prognosticators: There's no chance Clinton wins Vermont. Obama has a lead of better than 20%.

wow self-timewarp

And Vermont is awesome: they elect socialists...well Bernie Sanders.

I said barely stand. He's a socialist by US standards I suppose, closer to a social-democrat on an objective spectrum.

I disagree with your analysis:

Summary (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html)





Obama's Historical Revision

Careful. If you act reasonable people will start to expect it.

So let's see if I have this clear. Your argument is "ignore what Jocabia said, and concentrate on what I said, since what I said leaves out all of the relevant points." Accepted. Reality doesn't match your crap.

Vermont: Obama He's landsliding the polls there

Texas: Obama There will be lots of "irregularities" due to the "Texas two-step" system, red-state-run elections, and the Clinton campaign's penchant for caucus-electioneering, but Obama will win anyway since his machine will be better at getting out the double-vote/caucus and the delegate selection favors the areas that will lean his way.

Ohio: Clinton, but not by a whole lot.

Rhode Island: Probably Clinton, but it's too compact a state to say for sure.

That article is from May 2002, and any activity was denied by the Pentagon. Anything more current?

Seriously, CH. I really did read what you wrote and pretend you were serious for a minute in an attempt to take you seriously. I can't find anything. Seriosly, this sets the record for the most seriously dishonest argument of anyone ever.

Say explicitly that you'll quit if I prove an attack in Pakistan has occurred in in the last say, year. Promise. Declare this "I, CH, declare I am an idiot and should not speak until the election of November, 2008 is over, provided an attack has been made in Pakisatan since the beginning of 2007." You ready. Make the declaration. I'll wait. If you're right there is no danger. Make it. I'll be happy to prove how nonsensical you are being.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/paki-a29.shtml
According to this article:

To date, the Bush administration has played down cross-border operations to minimise the political fall-out for Musharraf, who confronts widespread domestic opposition over his support for the US occupation of Afghanistan and the bogus “war on terror”. For its part, the Pakistani regime has trod a fine line: publicly insisting that the US military observe its borders, while collaborating closely behind the scenes. The Associated Press article reported that the US military had established a liaison office in Islamabad that was responsible for notifying local authorities of US incursions into Pakistan.
It would appear that this attack and perhaps others may not be unilateral in nature.

I m already worried about the primary results.......

Oh you're seriously kidding, right?
When someone claims that "many engagements" were being fought on Pakistan's soil, one would expect that an attack 6 years ago that the Pentagon denied any involvement in would not constitute "many".

Certainly one cannot consider the latest air strikes by unmanned drones as being "engagements"?

When someone claims that "many engagements" were being fought on Pakistan's soil, one would expect that an attack 6 years ago that the Pentagon denied any involvement in would not constitute "many".

Certainly one cannot consider the latest air strikes by unmanned drones as being "engagements"?

You consider them tantamount to overturning the government of Pakistan when it comes to Obama, but you won't consider exactly what he's talking about an engagement when it actually happens? Wow...

You consider them tantamount to overturning the government of Pakistan when it comes to Obama, but you won't consider exactly what he's talking about an engagement when it actually happens? Wow...
It would appear from some of the articles that Pakistan is giving backdoor permission to target certain individuals. Most of these are being carried out by a drone or missle. There is no direct "engagement" of forces fighting in Pakistan as some posters have claimed.

So if Obama acts "unilaterally" without Musharraf's approval then certainly the risk factor for the Pakistan government increases.

It would appear from some of the articles that Pakistan is giving backdoor permission to target certain individuals. Most of these are being carried out by a drone or missle. There is no direct "engagement" of forces fighting in Pakistan as some posters have claimed.
So is the article old news or suddenly relevant?

So if Obama acts "unilaterally" without Musharraf's approval then certainly the risk factor for the Pakistan government increases.

Seeing as that is a possibility with all the candidates I can only assume that you are now backing Nader or Paul?

That article is from May 2002, and any activity was denied by the Pentagon. Anything more current?

Check the rest of my links in the posts. There are articles from 2007 and 2008. The one article was from 2002, but there are others more recent. Please go back and review as I'm not going to repost for convenience this time.

According to this article:


It would appear that this attack and perhaps others may not be unilateral in nature.

Once again they only notified them after the attack. This would make it unilateral. Of course the Pakis got pissed afterwards, but it's the same argument Hillary made for "after the missiles are in the air."

More evidence from my sources and others that say you can't squirm out of this one.

19/02/08 "Washington Post" -- -- In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years (in two years means there were strikes like this before), and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.

U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests.

Top Bush administration policy officials -- who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West -- have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.

"In the past, it required getting approval from the highest levels," said one former intelligence official involved in planning for previous strikes. "You may have information that is valid for only 30 minutes. If you wait, the information is no longer valid."

But when the autonomous U.S. military operations in Pakistan succeed, support for them grows in Washington in probably the same proportion as Pakistani resentments increase. Even as U.S. officials ramp up the pressure on Musharraf to do more, Pakistan's embattled president has taken a harder line in public against cooperation in recent months, the sources said. "The posture that was evident two years ago is not evident," said a senior U.S. official who frequently visits the region.

US cross-border operations that have the potential to further destabilise Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s uncertain grip on power.

The US-led coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement declaring that Pakistan had given permission for an attack on Taliban positions inside its borders. Occupation forces in the eastern province of Paktika used artillery and mortar fire to destroy six positions—three inside Afghanistan, and three across the border in Pakistan. According to the statement, at least 12 insurgents were killed in the barrage.

So they used more than predators as you brought out in another post. Although they were given permission in this case, it still means that there are battles across the border in Pakistan which you denied in earlier posts. This time artillery and mortars were used.

But then wait!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's more!!!!!!!!

Pakistani officials emphatically denied giving approval for the assault. Military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad declared, “There was no attack [from Pakistan], no firing from our side of the border. And there was no permission asked by them or given by us.” Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam dismissed further US claims that Washington had an understanding with Islamabad to allow cross-border attacks as “speculative and fabricated”.

Late Monday, the US military belatedly conceded that no permission had been given. “We regret the miscommunications in this event,” Brigadier General Joseph Votel, deputy commander of NATO’s eastern region, declared. However, he made no apology for the attack itself and gave no guarantee that US forces would not engage in further cross-border attacks.

There is no doubt that the US military has already taken action inside Pakistan. An Associated Press report published last week revealed that, as early as 2004, the rules of engagement for elite US special forces had authorised “hot pursuit” of anti-occupation fighters into Pakistan without seeking prior approval from Islamabad. The documents laid out circumstances in which US troops could penetrate up to 10 kilometres into Pakistani territory. Pakistani villagers have protested on a number of occasions against US incursions and attacks, including aerial bombings.

Now it's time for you to say, "you sunk my battleship."

AND... in a news report from February 28th

updated 12:10 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008

WANA, Pakistan - A missile struck a house in a Pakistani region known as being a safe haven for al-Qaida early on Thursday, killing 10 suspected militants including foreigners, intelligence officials and residents said.

The attack took place near Kaloosha village in the South Waziristan tribal region on the Afghan border.

Bother the US and Pakistani officials deny the claim, but are we more likely to believe Rueters and the actual residents who experienced the event? Or are we to believe government reports who have reason for obfuscation? These are all from the links I've provided you. Others have provided you info as well and I advise you look them over thoroughly before responded.

You queen is now not only dead, but she's being dismembered, cut into chunks, and burned in a cultist ritual to free her spirit for the Gods.

It would appear from some of the articles that Pakistan is giving backdoor permission to target certain individuals. Most of these are being carried out by a drone or missle. There is no direct "engagement" of forces fighting in Pakistan as some posters have claimed.

So if Obama acts "unilaterally" without Musharraf's approval then certainly the risk factor for the Pakistan government increases.

These actions were unilateral. They were exactly what Obama proposed. Exactly. The Pakistanis were only notified after the fact. Just as Clinton said, we've already done this. We've been doing this. There is nothing new about it.

Wanna make some more predictions about what's gonna happen if things that have already happened happen? (Sorry, your claims are so stupid I can't even make a mocking sentence out of them that makes any sense.)

CH has been checkmated.

CH, face it. You have failed to answer posts reasonably and when you attempt to do so, you ignore everything because it disagrees with your thought patterns.

Admit it CH, you are wrong.

US cross-border operations that have the potential to further destabilise Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s uncertain grip on power.
Absolutely the most disturbing part of your post. Is this what Americans want? Get out of Iraq and get into Pakistan?

Where are the links to those articles?

Absolutely the most disturbing part of your post. Is this what Americans want? Get out of Iraq and get into Pakistan?

Where are the links to those articles?

No. Nobody wants that. However, the US does want to take out the leadership of the Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda. Iraq is not going to get that done. It never was going to get that done. It wasn't even intended to do that. The only way any of this ends is if end that threat.

Absolutely the most disturbing part of your post. Is this what Americans want? Get out of Iraq and get into Pakistan?

Boy your reading level has gone down hill considerably during this entire debate.

Where are the links to those articles?

All throughout the various threads if you bothered to actually...you know...read the arguments against yours.

Absolutely the most disturbing part of your post. Is this what Americans want? Get out of Iraq and get into Pakistan?

Where are the links to those articles?

So instead of recognizing that I've proven you wrong time and time again you pick one small piece of information out of a long post to try and spin the argument. You said that it was a "new" battlefield. I have proven you wrong that it is nothing new and has been going on for years. Hell, it even happened only a few days ago.

Pakistan is already destabilized, have you not been paying attention? Don't you remember there being some sort of state of emergency? There aren't links to articles because that is not the intention of the US, their candidates for President, or their people. It's the intention that you wish to project upon Barack Obama. The idea is not to create new wars, but to continue to fight the ones we are currently engaged in. One of those battlefronts happens to be the border region of Pakistan. As my one link provided, the limit seems to be about 10km.

So when people call you dishonest just look down at your feet and see how the shoe fits. I would agree with others that you've now been checkmated, but I've already accomplished hat pages ago. Now your stuck grasping for straws hoping to be able to argue some point, any point. Finally, where are the "many others that will agree with me (you)?" Hell, even Skaladoria hasn't come in here to defend you. TCT realized you were a lost cause and bailed as well. There's no one but you sitting in the corner babbling, "my queen, why have you destroyed my queen? It wasn't enough to capture her, you had to tear her to pieces and burn her?"

Bride of Super Tuesday looms...3 1/2 hours till results start pouring in...will the Democratic groundhog see his shadow and give us 6 more weeks of primary? My fear is, yes.

Bride of Super Tuesday looms...3 1/2 hours till results start pouring in...will the Democratic groundhog see his shadow and give us 6 more weeks of primary? My fear is, yes.

I disagree. Hillary has to landslide for it to be worth it to keep going. Texas and Ohio are close with Obama in the lead in Texas.


If she doesnt landslide, to keep going would just be petty. She'll probably keep going anyway, but debate would be pointless.

I disagree. Hillary has to landslide for it to be worth it to keep going. Texas and Ohio are close with Obama in the lead in Texas.


If she doesnt landslide, to keep going would just be petty. She'll probably keep going anyway, but debate would be pointless.

In the Daily Show she mentioned Pennsylvania. Perhaps she intends it to be her new fall back position.

In the Daily Show she mentioned Pennsylvania. Perhaps she intends it to be her new fall back position.

she seems to be implying such, but frankly, unless she gets unexpected landslides today she mathematically cannot win without a complete and utter obama implosion that results in him throwing in the towel. i suspect that the supers will start declaring for obama over the course of the next week, essentially forcing hc to call it quits.

In the Daily Show she mentioned Pennsylvania. Perhaps she intends it to be her new fall back position.

That's the thing, I posted an article earlier. She's gamed the results now so that if she so much as wins only Rhode Island she'll question his legitimacy and push on.

Now, I'll grant, more and more party leaders are starting to say, "One way or another, this shit ends today." But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will. She's starting to crack his veneer with the Revko thing and the "NAFTAgate" thing, both of which seem like more noise them substance, but she's starting to get things to stick, which has been difficult to this point.

Plus the polls kind of resemble what was happening in California and that broke for her hard.

I agree with all of that, and yet the American people voted in 2004 for a continuation of that illogical war, by putting Bush back in the drivers seat. Mind boggling indeed.

What can I say? People are stupid.

No. Nobody wants that.
I am not too sure about that.

However, the US does want to take out the leadership of the Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda.
Do you think that is realistically achievable, without sending in a full scale invasion force?

How many hit and run tactics can the US pull off without causing a major upheaval in Pakistan?

Iraq is not going to get that done. It never was going to get that done. It wasn't even intended to do that.
I agree with all of that, and yet the American people voted in 2004 for a continuation of that illogical war, by putting Bush back in the drivers seat. Mind boggling indeed.

The only way any of this ends is if end that threat.
There has to be some resolve that doesn't revolve around bombs and bullets and threats?

The war in Iraq will seem like a picnic in comparison to a destablized Pakistan?

I am not too sure about that.


Do you think that is realistically achievable, without sending in a full scale invasion force?

How many hit and run tactics can the US pull off without causing a major upheaval in Pakistan?


I agree with all of that, and yet the American people voted in 2004 for a continuation of that illogical war, by putting Bush back in the drivers seat. Mind boggling indeed.


There has to be some resolve that doesn't revolve around bombs and bullets and threats?

The war in Iraq will seem like a picnic in comparison to a destablized Pakistan?

Good thing there is some resolve that doesn't revolve around. That you ceaseless ignore the multi-tiered approaches proposed by every candidate doesn't make them cease to exist. Everey candidate proposes that we attempt to work to make Pakistan more stable and less of a haven for terroriss. The hit-and-run tactics are only carried out in very specific circumstances. But every candidate believes they are bandaids. As long as we keep fostering the same environment that makes them necessary, the same actions that had us ignoring or molesting the problem for 8 years, we'll never be quit of it. Obama AND Hillary are proposing that we address the bleeding and the wounds. You seem to focus on Obama's willingness to address the bleeding and Hillary's willingness to address the wounds, but both have supported both.

That's the thing, I posted an article earlier. She's gamed the results now so that if she so much as wins only Rhode Island she'll question his legitimacy and push on.

Now, I'll grant, more and more party leaders are starting to say, "One way or another, this shit ends today." But that doesn't necessarily mean that it will. She's starting to crack his veneer with the Revko thing and the "NAFTAgate" thing, both of which seem like more noise them substance, but she's starting to get things to stick, which has been difficult to this point.

Plus the polls kind of resemble what was happening in California and that broke for her hard.


I have to say I think she's gonna get it done in Ohio. Both of them should be embarrassed about that NAFTA nonsense. Truly, I really hope the party leaders step in and tell them to check themselves. The NAFTA doesn't have ANY substance. None. It's blatantly untrue, but the time people realize it, the election will be over, which is exactly why she did it. Like I said, they should be ashamed.

I have to say I think she's gonna get it done in Ohio. Both of them should be embarrassed about that NAFTA nonsense. Truly, I really hope the party leaders step in and tell them to check themselves. The NAFTA doesn't have ANY substance. None. It's blatantly untrue, but the time people realize it, the election will be over, which is exactly why she did it. Like I said, they should be ashamed.
I just flipped over to CNN for a bit because a Tales from the Darkside marathon wasn't being as captivating as I hoped...anyway, they were doing early exit polls in Ohio and among people who thought trade was a big issue, they were trending towards Obama. This last minute deal might actually not be as effective as I thought. Or, the early exit poll meaningless.

But, yeah, I agree, the NAFTA debate has been ridiculous. It's been a net loss all around.

I just flipped over to CNN for a bit because a Tales from the Darkside marathon wasn't being as captivating as I hoped...anyway, they were doing early exit polls in Ohio and among people who thought trade was a big issue, they were trending towards Obama. This last minute deal might actually not be as effective as I thought.


MSNBC and Fox News had the same results. It looks like the NAFTA thing did jack shit so far.


The only thing Hillary has done is great a potential weakness for McRambo to exploit in Novemeber.

Barack Obama October 02, 2002 (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php)

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.......

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Barack Obama August 01, 2007 (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan....

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan......

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Now the $64,000 question:

So, if Obama was President in 2003 we'd have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?

About 15 minutes before Verontcloses and 45 minutes before Ohio closes.

Barack Obama October 02, 2002 (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php)



Barack Obama August 01, 2007 (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)


Now the $64,000 question:

So, if Obama was President in 2003 we'd have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?

Come on. You are just being silly. You aren't doing any candidate or yourself any good with these lame arguments.

So, if Obama was President in 2003 we'd have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?
We would have captured and/or killed Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, instead of letting him slip away into Pakistan in the first place.

Obama took the state of Vermont.

The state of Ohio is closing soon. We will know soon who won the state. Give them about 90 minutes to call it.

The state of Ohio is closing soon. We will know soon who won the state. Give them about 90 minutes to call it.

ohio is too close to call out the gates. and given that she needs landslides in every race to rack up enough of the remaining winnable delegates to overcome obama's lead, and not even the democrats are stupid enough to have the supers go against the pledged delegate wins, that means hc almost certainly can't win the nomination without obama getting assassinated by some racist motherfucker or something.

ohio is too close to call out the gates. and given that she needs landslides in every race to rack up enough of the remaining winnable delegates to overcome obama's lead, and not even the democrats are stupid enough to have the supers go against the pledged delegate wins, that means hc almost certainly can't win the nomination without obama getting assassinated by some racist motherfucker or something.

Well right now it is a 56-42 lead for Clinton but 0% are reporting and ony 2 counties are coming in at the moment.

Well right now it is a 56-42 lead for Clinton but 0% are reporting and ony 2 counties are coming in at the moment.

The gap is getting widening. Surprisingly, it's going the other direction in Texas...this is actually engaging...

how are there like a million votes in texas with 1% of the precincts reporting? is that all early voting?

Sooo...what the hell happened to Rhode Island? Shouldn't this state capable of being counted by a show of hands? Where are their results...?

Well MSNBC is saying poll hours are being extended in Ohio and 15precincts are reporting ballot shortages.

I'm thinking Ohio will go Clinton but Texas will go to the Obama camp.

Sooo...what the hell happened to Rhode Island? Shouldn't this state capable of being counted by a show of hands? Where are their results...?

they are just taking their sweet ass-time and keeping their polls open until the old people who run polling places physically cannot stay awake anymore, i think.

Barack Obama October 02, 2002 (http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php)



Barack Obama August 01, 2007 (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)


Now the $64,000 question:

So, if Obama was President in 2003 we'd have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?

What's that? You can't refute that all of the candidates actually said these things about Pakistan along with Obama. You cannot now refute that there is no new battlefield in Pakistan because, SHIT, we've been attacking across the border since 2002 until just a few days ago. So now you come up with this question. How about all the questions you have been proven wrong on? How about all of the statements you made where you have been mistaken. Please tell me I can find you to at least have some shred of decency left! Please! You keep repeating "new battlefield, right battlefield, squawk squawk." Nobody takes you serious anymore. You've destroyed any credibility you have had in the past. Hell, I'd like to believe that someone hijacked your account and is posting as you. This is the only way I can not laugh every time I see your name in a thread. Sorry, but you've been found wanting.

Ugh, looks like Ohio to Senator Clinton 60/40 or thereabouts and pretty much the same ratio the other way round in Texas.

I'd rather it was either close in each state so both could at least claim there was an even battle or one or the other took both - but for these margins...

I think this is the worst result, it's just going to drag on lamely now til Pennsylvania. I'd rather Senator Clinton dropped out here but she won't with these figures.

Ugh.

EDIT: Oh, I totally misread the figures - only 1% precincts reporting, I thought it was 60% reporting for some bizarre 'blame it on the morning' reason.

Well, if things go as I wrote then it remains ugh, if not...I'm rambling now.

*drinks coffee*

Looks like McCain's taken all three so far, at least that's how they've called it - politico.com's tracker is great for these,

Sooo...what the hell happened to Rhode Island? Shouldn't this state capable of being counted by a show of hands? Where are their results...?

Yeah, seriously, cheer if you like Obama (Roar), cheer if you like Clinton (Roar), once again for Obama...and Clinton....

Ok, we'll give it to Obama.

There goes Huck...

OOooh, there's Rhode Island, goin' for Clinton. Streak ends at 12.

Looks like it's going to be Clinton 2 Obama 2, with Clinton taking the smaller states. I think the last minute chaff about NAFTA may have hurt Obama in Ohio.

The Associated Press Projects Obama and McCain as the Winners in Vermont The Associated Press projects that Senator Barack Obama haswon the Democratic primary in Vermont. It also projectsSenator John McCain as the winner of the Republican primarythere.


Thats the first result as far as I know that concreat so far.


RH 28% counted - Clinton
OH 21% counted - Clinton
Texas 7% counted - Obama


Hillary cannot win with the numbers up now. She still will be behind, because shes not winning by a landslide. If she has any grace, she will bow out after the primaries here, especially now that the Republicans have their nomination.

Thats the first result as far as I know that concreat so far.


RH 28% counted - Clinton
OH 21% counted - Clinton
Texas 7% counted - Obama


Hillary cannot win with the numbers up now. She still will be behind, because shes not winning by a landslide. If she has any grace, she will bow out after the primaries here, especially now that the Republicans have their nomination.

I'm not sure - with 21% of Ohio counted, Senator Clinton has a pretty strong lead and it's remained consistent.

In Texas, she's catching up, from about 42% when it started to about 48% now and Senator Obama's dropped to just under 51%.

I think if Texas is too close to call, essentially 50/50 - and I really don't know how their delegates work out, then she has a strong case to stay in.

She's taken the big states, she's taken the ones that seem to matter in actual elections, that's a good argument for her - again, we can all debate the relative merits of this but it's really coming down to the argument put forth to the super delegates - if it's close and she has those biggies, she has a case.

To be honest, I'd rather it was all over and, to be really honest, I think the Democrats have an uphill struggle to win the actual election.

how are there like a million votes in texas with 1% of the precincts reporting? is that all early voting?

Now thats strange.......

Both states are starting to close into themselves, and in Ohio the big population centers haven't reported yet.

Both states are starting to close into themselves, and in Ohio the big population centers haven't reported yet.

I do wish that Obama won all 4 states........

Dude, I really hope they don't suddenly think attacking is the way to go. It's terrible. Obviously negative politics really hurts Obama's message, as well. And no matter what it hurts the Dems overall.

They (CNN) were talking about that just a few minutes ago, that if she stays in her only hope is to almost literally destroy Obama to in order to sway super delegates. He has to rise above it to survive it.

Both states are starting to close into themselves, and in Ohio the big population centers haven't reported yet.

Exactly, Ohios predominitally black large population centers havent been reported.


Therefore, you cant even begin to guess Ohio yet.

Exactly, Ohios predominitally black large population centers havent been reported.


Therefore, you cant even begin to guess Ohio yet.

I think you can to be honest but time will tell.

I've watched quite a few of this on politico.com and I've rarely seen 45% reporting to be too far from the final result, at most 3-5 % points.

Nothing's set in stone though.

Both states are starting to close into themselves, and in Ohio the big population centers haven't reported yet.

Dude, I really hope they don't suddenly think attacking is the way to go. It's terrible. Obviously negative politics really hurts Obama's message, as well. And no matter what it hurts the Dems overall.

Am I alone in thinking that unless Clinton wins and wins big in tonight's competition the party should start pressuring her to drop out? I say her because, to me, her actions thus far have smacked of doing this for herself, not the party: the negative campaigning, basically giving the finger to the past 11(?) states, the Florida and Michigan debacle, and the longer this drags on the harder of a fight they're going to have come November, especially now that McCain's pretty much got his nomination wrapped up.

Am I alone in thinking that unless Clinton wins and wins big in tonight's competition the party should start pressuring her to drop out? I say her because, to me, her actions thus far have smacked of doing this for herself, not the party: the negative campaigning, basically giving the finger to the past 11(?) states, the Florida and Michigan debacle, and the longer this drags on the harder of a fight they're going to have come November, especially now that McCain's pretty much got his nomination wrapped up.

Lots of people have said that publicly lately. Still, campaigns are unpredictable, and no one has it won yet. Hillary may have gone negative, but negative works - always. The majority of states haven't voted so 'giving the finger' to 11 states isn't much of an argument, and there's still eight months until the general election, so there's plenty of time to re-work the image of whoever wins.

Texas

21 percent reporting

Obama 49% -- 696,576
Clinton 49% -- 689,286

I think OBama will still win Texas. Ohio though will probably go Clinton as much as I hate to say it.

That's a pretty bold opinion - you know, with every news website in the country saying exactly that. Nice to meet a risk-taker, though. :p

Looks like McCain's taken all three so far, at least that's how they've called it - politico.com's tracker is great for these,



Yeah, seriously, cheer if you like Obama (Roar), cheer if you like Clinton (Roar), once again for Obama...and Clinton....

Ok, we'll give it to Obama.

A hearty congratulations must go out to John McCain. He was counted out and left for dead and he won it all. Good show!

I think OBama will still win Texas. Ohio though will probably go Clinton as much as I hate to say it.

Both states are starting to close into themselves, and in Ohio the big population centers haven't reported yet.

This is the concern. The larger population centers in both states are still coming in. Some are at 0% reporting so there's still a long way to go. I certainly must go to bed before the final counts are in.

A hearty congratulations must go out to John McCain. He was counted out and left for dead and he won it all. Good show!

Very true. McCain's is quite an accomplishment - given the polls prior to Iowa, it seems almost miraculous. A good thing, all things considered. :)

Lots of people have said that publicly lately. Still, campaigns are unpredictable, and no one has it won yet. Hillary may have gone negative, but negative works - always. The majority of states haven't voted so 'giving the finger' to 11 states isn't much of an argument, and there's still eight months until the general election, so there's plenty of time to re-work the image of whoever wins.

Indeed, Obama needs to pound her if she stays in now. It's been proven she's not about the "ideas" portion of politics but the smear area is her strength. It's time for Obama to fight fire with fire and cut her legs. It's sad, but you and Barringtonia are right...Negative works!

Clinton is leading in Texas now

25 percent reporting

Clinton 49% -- 722,154
Obama 49% -- 719,536

She's edged into the lead in Texas now.

San Antonio only has 3% reporting at the moment and Houston has 1% reporting.

Dallas is coming in at 13% and Travis is coming in at 9%.

Give it time.

Obama does well in the cities I hear.

Seems like Clinton will win Ohio......

Clinton is leading in Texas now

25 percent reporting

Clinton 49% -- 722,154
Obama 49% -- 719,536

Take a screenshot - polls say it won't last. :p Although they may have underestimated her ground game. Anything's possible.

Indeed, Obama needs to pound her if she stays in now. It's been proven she's not about the "ideas" portion of politics but the smear area is her strength. It's time for Obama to fight fire with fire and cut her legs. It's sad, but you and Barringtonia are right...Negative works!

I'm not convinced that Obama can't go negative without taking the 'shine' off his campaign (as a few people have said). He'd probably benefit from adding a bit of mud to his reputation, even if it takes them both down a peg in the short term - it's about the nomination right now, after all.

Indeed, Obama needs to pound her if she stays in now. It's been proven she's not about the "ideas" portion of politics but the smear area is her strength. It's time for Obama to fight fire with fire and cut her legs. It's sad, but you and Barringtonia are right...Negative works!

I'm not sure, I think the clear message of the last few days is that negative did NOT work for Senator Obama - it's mostly because he set himself on a platform of being a 'different kind of politician', 'tired of negative politics', looking to 'build America, not tear it down'.

If you're going to run with that, stick with it because, as we're seeing right now, any slip and it's going to cost you.

Clinton is leading in Texas now

25 percent reporting

Clinton 49% -- 722,154
Obama 49% -- 719,536

Obama is taking it big in large population centers. They have 1%, 9% and 11% reporting of the major population centers. In the large population centers she is mainly being beaten by an average of 60-30. CNN called Ohio for Hillary. It will get closer as the time goes by, but Ohio goes for Hillary. It still might go down 2 and 2 by the end of the night. Hillary managed to keep her head above the water, but she needed a knock out. This is a moral victory for Hillary, but she'll still be trailing in delegates. It's getting interesting.

Ohio has been called for Clinton.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :(

Clinton is leading in Texas now

25 percent reporting

Clinton 49% -- 722,154
Obama 49% -- 719,536

San Antonio only has 3% reporting at the moment and Houston has 1% reporting.

Dallas is coming in at 13% and Travis is coming in at 9%.

Give it time.

Pffft Im really glad I aint living in the USA lmao ! We still have a king no need with all the political things , but I do know this Im sure their will be coming problems when Obama will be president as America still have utterly racist ;)

Indeed, Obama needs to pound her if she stays in now. It's been proven she's not about the "ideas" portion of politics but the smear area is her strength. It's time for Obama to fight fire with fire and cut her legs. It's sad, but you and Barringtonia are right...Negative works!

Not if you're claiming to be the unifying candidate. He's got to stick to his message. He can just stick to the light slights. That's kept him ahead for 40 states.

Ohio has been called for Clinton.

I'm not convinced that Obama can't go negative without taking the 'shine' off his campaign (as a few people have said). He'd probably benefit from adding a bit of mud to his reputation, even if it takes them both down a peg in the short term - it's about the nomination right now, after all.

This isn't a bad point - he at least needs to show he can fight hard, he has to be very careful about how he does it though.

I can imagine the Republican Party are rubbing their hands in glee right now.

I'm not sure, I think the clear message of the last few days is that negative did NOT work for Senator Obama - it's mostly because he set himself on a platform of being a 'different kind of politician', 'tired of negative politics', looking to 'build America, not tear it down'.

If you're going to run with that, stick with it because, as we're seeing right now, any slip and it's going to cost you.

I would agree with you, but things can change. Obama can't keep absorbing her blows forever. It may have hurt him in Ohio in the short term, but for the long fight he needs to hit her hard. Look at this being funny, 3 Republicans arguing the Democratic nomination :-)

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3644/clintonohiokt6.png

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9761/clintonrigs4.png

Btw on another note didn't the Clinton family proofed their worthy many years ago ? Like Bill chasing the women in the white house ? Dont think that was included in the package of the welfare of America ? :p

The Democrats have since adopted a sort of teleological ethics; e.g. scumbags who don't do much are better than well-intentioned mis-stepping. In other words, it never happened. :p

This isn't a bad point - he at least needs to show he can fight hard, he has to be very careful about how he does it though.

I can imagine the Republican Party are rubbing their hands in glee right now.

I'd agree except that Bush plans to endorse McCain tomorrow. Tying McCain to Bush more than he is already associated with him is not helpful to McCain.

Btw on another note didn't the Clinton family proofed their worthy many years ago ? Like Bill chasing the women in the white house ? Dont think that was included in the package of the welfare of America ? :p

I'd agree except that Bush plans to endorse McCain tomorrow. Tying McCain to Bush more than he is already associated with him is not helpful to McCain.

Ha ha, yeah but I guess better to get a given endorsement out the way early in the hubbub of the current D's battle than later.

Ive made a decision.


If it comes down to Hillary and McCain, Im voting third party.


*goes off to research third party candidates*

I believe this one is called "Crucial Tuesday". Appears that Hillary is still hanging on with her claws. Will be interesting to see the finals in Texas.

Way to leave out the Vermont went to Obama.

She didnt win enough of them by enough of a margin, so Obama still has a solid lead.

However, if the super delegates give it to her anyway, I will be voting third party.


Partly because Hillary is conservative who puts on a facade as something else, is little different from Bush or McCain, and because the party ignored the will of the people. That is their right, but I dont have to be happy about it.


EDIT: Do we really need another thread on American elections? Even Im getting sick of all of them. Couldnt you have posted this on one of your other Hillary cheerleading threads?

Ole Huckster has officially decided that he might not win after all.

Give that man a lollipop.

Huckabee throws his support to McCain (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/Huck_throws_his_support_to_McCain.html)

I'm surprised he didn't throw his support to Rudy - 'I like that man's chances' says Governor Huckabee.

"Crucial Tuesday" is about right. There's another thread on this, but I suppose this one has a more neutral title. ;)

Huckabee said he was counting on a merical.


Huckster, where is your God now?

Ok heres my opinion: Obama should not be president, he is the worst of the four. Nor Huckabee, he hasn't the drive to continue what we started in Iraq. Nor Hillary due to her relationship w/ Bill, she will do what he says so it will be the same as 1996. So that leaves Mc.Cane (sry if its spelled wrong) who I have many dissagreements w/ but he is logicly the best.
Oh my reasons for not wanting Obama are that he has nill experience, and the leader of vinezuela and the leader of Cuba both have ties with a drug bassed terrorist organization that promises to act up if Obama is ellected because they believe his lack of experience will give them much needed slack to spread their control area out of Colombia.
Just my oppinion.

Dubya, we've told you before not to come onto these boards and we've also told you to use spellchecker.

:)

Ok heres my opinion: Obama should not be president, he is the worst of the four. Nor Huckabee, he hasn't the drive to continue what we started in Iraq. Nor Hillary due to her relationship w/ Bill, she will do what he says so it will be the same as 1996. So that leaves Mc.Cane (sry if its spelled wrong) who I have many dissagreements w/ but he is logicly the best.
Oh my reasons for not wanting Obama are that he has nill experience, and the leader of vinezuela and the leader of Cuba both have ties with a drug bassed terrorist organization that promises to act up if Obama is ellected because they believe his lack of experience will give them much needed slack to spread their control area out of Colombia.
Just my oppinion.



This post is a fail of epic magnatude.

This post is a fail of epic magnatude.

It's an opinion dude.

You spell 'magnitude' wrong.

Nobody's perfect.

The Democrats have since adopted a sort of teleological ethics; e.g. scumbags who don't do much are better than well-intentioned mis-stepping. In other words, it never happened. :p

Hmmm... banged an intern versus lied and killed 100 thousand people. Yeah, that's not much of a battle.

Bullshit! In the language of the yanks, this fight ain't over till it's over! :D

No, it's true. I hear her victory speech in the background. It's quite grating, but then, most masturbatory crap is.

"As Ohio goes, so goes the nation!"

"YES WE WILL! YES WE WILL!"

If this doesn't end soon, I fear for the Democrats chances in November. This is just handing ammo to the Republicans. A split Democratic party has never won the election in recent history.

Ok heres my opinion: Obama should not be president, he is the worst of the four. Nor Huckabee, he hasn't the drive to continue what we started in Iraq. Nor Hillary due to her relationship w/ Bill, she will do what he says so it will be the same as 1996. So that leaves Mc.Cane (sry if its spelled wrong) who I have many dissagreements w/ but he is logicly the best.
Oh my reasons for not wanting Obama are that he has nill experience, and the leader of vinezuela and the leader of Cuba both have ties with a drug bassed terrorist organization that promises to act up if Obama is ellected because they believe his lack of experience will give them much needed slack to spread their control area out of Colombia.
Just my oppinion.

Listening to Hillary's speech right now is funny to me. She keeps repeating the same thing. she just gave the line about "tested and ready on day one" to be commander in chief. She goes that way against McCain and she'll get destroyed. As the situation continues to actually get better in Iraq it just means more for McCain. Voting for Hillary is the best thing the Republican party can hope from the Democrats. I'm just waiting for Schaladoria to come online and start cheerleading. I guess when you've been in the desert for so long even drinking your own piss seems to be a viable solution. Haha, equating a Hillary win to drinking piss...You can tell it's getting late here on the east coast.

McCain is like Bush a warmonger , btw they arent in Iraqi for the terrorists or the dramatic problems over their but for the oil ...

And also its better if some of these candidates are preparing for a large update for the economical structure of America I think its needed as it drop WAY below the € these day's ;)

Man shopping in New York is soooo cheap for the Europeans :p

Ipod here in Belguim costs +- 250 Euros
Ipod in New York costs what ? 169 Dollars ?

Anyway If I would be a citizen of America I would support someone thats willing to support the economie and not filling their own pockets for fame and glory ;)

Check this call out:

Obama General Counsel Crashes Clinton Press Call On Voting Irregularities In Texas; Engages In Heated Exchange With Clinton Staff

March 4, 2008

This evening, the Clinton Campaign held an urgent press call to discuss reported incidents of voting irregularities and intimidation taking place at primary conventions (caucuses) across the state of Texas. Bob Bauer, Obama Campaign’s General Counsel, was on the call and engaged Clinton’s staff (much to their surprise).

The exchange between Bauer and the Clinton staff became heated.

You can hear it here (http://2008central.net/2008/03/04/obama-general-counsel-crashes-clinton-press-call-on-voting-irregularitis-in-texas-engages-in-heated-exchange-with-clinton-staff/).

Ohio has been called for Clinton.

Bullshit! In the language of the yanks, this fight ain't over till it's over! :D

McCain is a warmonger just like Bush ? u really think he would be profitable for Amerca its purpose ? Besides Americanes are only in Iraqi for the oil people arent blind u know ;)

Hmmm... banged an intern versus lied and killed 100 thousand people. Yeah, that's not much of a battle.

Thank you for illustrating my point. :p

Bullshit! In the language of the yanks, this fight ain't over till it's over! :D

They speak differently in Missouri then? :p

Check this call out:



You can hear it here (http://2008central.net/2008/03/04/obama-general-counsel-crashes-clinton-press-call-on-voting-irregularitis-in-texas-engages-in-heated-exchange-with-clinton-staff/).

This doesnt shock me.


Who's using Karl Rove's playbook now you scummy bitch?

No, it's true. I hear her victory speech in the background. It's quite grating, but then, most masturbatory crap is.

"As Ohio goes, so goes the nation!"

"YES WE WILL! YES WE WILL!"

If this doesn't end soon, I fear for the Democrats chances in November. This is just handing ammo to the Republicans. A split Democratic party has never won the election in recent history.

She keeps hitting the national security angle. John McCain is smiling watching this speech. I say this now and I'll stick by it until it becomes clear I am wrong.... Hillary cannot beat McCain. Which for me makes me happy even if Obama doesn't win. Harris county seems like it will turn it for Obama. We shall see. I'm tired and it's time for bed. Good night all.

This doesnt shock me.


Who's using Karl Rove's playbook now you scummy bitch?

Relax Knights. It's nothing to lose your head over. She's been using his playbook since the start. The Clinton's and Karl Rove are of the same mold. You knew she couldn't keep it positive the whole time. She sure as hell was going to go negative. I'm actually surprised it took her this long.

Also, calling Hillary a scummy bitch is redundant. :D

Check this call out:



You can hear it here (http://2008central.net/2008/03/04/obama-general-counsel-crashes-clinton-press-call-on-voting-irregularitis-in-texas-engages-in-heated-exchange-with-clinton-staff/).

Dude, that just heats me up. This kind of tactic is digusting. I think she should absolutely be forced to prove this. Where are the cops who had to reopen the polling places? This would be easy to prove.

Thank you for illustrating my point. :p

I just can't fathom how Republicans can make this comparison. I didn't like Clinton nor did I vote for him, but calling Bush well-intentioned or the death of 100,000 a misstep is pretty much as big as intellectual dishonesty gets.

I just can't fathom how Republicans can make this comparison. I didn't like Clinton nor did I vote for him, but calling Bush well-intentioned or the death of 100,000 a misstep is pretty much as big as intellectual dishonesty gets.

Not in the least, seeing as I'm not willing to entertain the malevolent attribution you're (not "you" specifically, but many Democrats) placing on Bush's action against Iraq. The comparison isn't war-versus-infidelity/perjury, after all - it's a comparison of the character of those two individuals, not the magnitude of their actions, which were largely dictated by circumstance rather than willed by the men themselves.

I just can't fathom how Republicans can make this comparison. I didn't like Clinton nor did I vote for him, but calling Bush well-intentioned or the death of 100,000 a misstep is pretty much as big as intellectual dishonesty gets.

To be fair, I think Bush is well-intentioned. His brain is too small to be capable of malice. ;)

Not in the least, seeing as I'm not willing to entertain the malevolent attribution you're (not "you" specifically, but many Democrats) placing on Bush's action against Iraq. The comparison isn't war-versus-infidelity/perjury, after all - it's a comparison of the character of those two individuals, not the magnitude of their actions, which were largely dictated by circumstance rather than willed by the men themselves.

The character differences are pretty clear. Clinton wasn't a wonderful person by any stretch. But he was no Bush. Bush has had more scandal than any President ever. I did a thread on it once and I got bored with listing them. I was at 50 I think. Bush is a criminal. Clinton lied about getting a blow job. Bush lied and got us into a war. He's guilty of torture. He's guilty of throwing away rights. If they can be compared then my nephew is a war criminal.

I'm going to say Obama did not start this speech poorly. He's starting to hit his stride right now, but this speech is far more subdued than his previous ones. He mentioned the 3.01 donation again. Anyone find it funny that Hillary mentioned her $10 contribution. She's trying to go against the fact that most of her donations come in 2,300 chunks. I just find it funny as I continue to listen. As I type now Barack is talking about the problems that face most Americans. This is his strength and he should continue this line of speaking. The "false charge and meaningless..." is directed right at Hillary. "You cannot call it hollow." He started off poorly, but he's getting it going now. As soon as this is over I need my bed. Really, i need to get away from you people! :)

Wait, wait, I don't understand. According to this, Obama's campaign was the one conducting the scummy tactics, not Clinton's. Why are we angry at her?

Because if it were true it would be ALL over the news. We'd have interviews with the cops. They have repeatedly made these kinds of accusations. This is just nonsense. If I see some evidence, I'll believe it. Thus far her campaign has proven to be entirely dishonest in their accusations.

(And, no, I'm not saying that Obama is above such accusations. If he was making them, I'd be accusing his campaign.)

Not in the least, seeing as I'm not willing to entertain the malevolent attribution you're (not "you" specifically, but many Democrats) placing on Bush's action against Iraq. The comparison isn't war-versus-infidelity/perjury, after all - it's a comparison of the character of those two individuals, not the magnitude of their actions, which were largely dictated by circumstance rather than willed by the men themselves.

Circumstances did not dictate that Bush lie about Iraq. Circumstances did not dictate that he lie about torture. They did not dictate that he sit idly by while New Orleans drowned. A man is judged by how he reacts to circumstances, and a man who claims to be dictated to by them will be found wanting.

Because if it were true it would be ALL over the news. We'd have interviews with the cops. They have repeatedly made these kinds of accusations. This is just nonsense. If I see some evidence, I'll believe it. Thus far her campaign has proven to be entirely dishonest in their accusations.

(And, no, I'm not saying that Obama is above such accusations. If he was making them, I'd be accusing his campaign.)

These are coming off public calls rather than just claims by the Clinton campaign

Memo (http://2008central.net/2008/03/04/clinton-press-release-memo-caucus-irregularities/)

I do think they should conduct thorough checks before going to the press but it's not like they just made it up.

It's also possibly a result of fired up Obama supporters rather than anything organised - if it's true.

Dude, that just heats me up. This kind of tactic is digusting. I think she should absolutely be forced to prove this. Where are the cops who had to reopen the polling places? This would be easy to prove.

Wait, wait, I don't understand. According to this, Obama's campaign was the one conducting the scummy tactics, not Clinton's. Why are we angry at her?

These are coming off public calls rather than just claims by the Clinton campaign

Memo (http://2008central.net/2008/03/04/clinton-press-release-memo-caucus-irregularities/)

I do think they should conduct thorough checks before going to the press but it's not like they just made it up.

It's also possibly a result of fired up Obama supporters rather than anything organised - if it's true.

It's their memo. I don't doubt they're claiming they were told this. They said the cops were called. If they were that's VERY easy to prove. Where's the proof? As usual, there is none.

Because if it were true it would be ALL over the news. We'd have interviews with the cops. They have repeatedly made these kinds of accusations. This is just nonsense. If I see some evidence, I'll believe it. Thus far her campaign has proven to be entirely dishonest in their accusations.

(And, no, I'm not saying that Obama is above such accusations. If he was making them, I'd be accusing his campaign.)

Oh...so basically she's making up the allegations then?

That is quite scummy indeed.

The character differences are pretty clear. Clinton wasn't a wonderful person by any stretch. But he was no Bush. Bush has had more scandal than any President ever. I did a thread on it once and I got bored with listing them. I was at 50 I think. Bush is a criminal. Clinton lied about getting a blow job. Bush lied and got us into a war. He's guilty of torture. He's guilty of throwing away rights. If they can be compared then my nephew is a war criminal.

I got the point the first time around, thanks. ;) Really, you can take a dozen different legal points and conflicts, mix in a little Bush = Hitler, and pin a whole litany of complaints and abuses on the current president, from Abu Ghraib to the CIA pouring water on three people without a trial. If you subtract the fundamental malevolent attribution needed to make the argument, you aren't left with much. Figure in that Iraq doesn't happen without Clinton-era measures and sanctions, and you have even less. I'll agree that the comparison isn't worth much, and I don't base my support or non-support of a candidate on comparison to former leaders except in rare incidences. I'm content to leave the past where it is, for the most part. :)

I'm going to say Obama did not start this speech poorly. He's starting to hit his stride right now, but this speech is far more subdued than his previous ones. He mentioned the 3.01 donation again. Anyone find it funny that Hillary mentioned her $10 contribution. She's trying to go against the fact that most of her donations come in 2,300 chunks. I just find it funny as I continue to listen. As I type now Barack is talking about the problems that face most Americans. This is his strength and he should continue this line of speaking. The "false charge and meaningless..." is directed right at Hillary. "You cannot call it hollow." He started off poorly, but he's getting it going now. As soon as this is over I need my bed. Really, i need to get away from you people! :)

He looked a little clammy and a bit stiff, but, a few stutters aside, he got his key phrases in. At least he got his 5 minutes - I've only heard a blurb from McCain, and a soundbyte from Huckabee, even if he deserves a bit less. :p

They speak differently in Missouri then? :p

Yeah, more or less. ;)

Oh...so basically she's making up the allegations then?

That is quite scummy indeed.

The Democratic Party has issued an official notice - essentially to warn both because reports have been received:

Democratic Party officials in Austin confirm that certain Texas precincts - apparently plural, but no official word on how many or which, just a few out of thousands - began phoning in informal caucus results as early as 7:15 p.m. based on early head-counts of signed-in attendees. Those calls arrived at the undisclosed-location Austin phone center where 175 lines have been set up in anticipation of record turnout, and to forward info to the media handicappers you see on your screen even as you read this. Party officials sicced lawyers on the offending precincts, instructing them not to jump the gun, to hold their caucuses and THEN call in with results.


Link (http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/03/04/early-irregularities/)

However...

Asked if the Texas Democratic Party is rebuking the Obama campaign in particular, Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said such an assertion is not true.

Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/tex-dem-party-n.html)

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3644/clintonohiokt6.png

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9761/clintonrigs4.png

Congratulations.

(no, I'm not being sarcastic)


I take a short break to play a java game and all hell breaks loose...

So far my predictions are all true. Go me. Including her pounding on.

An interesting thing brought up in the coverage-the primaries are crazy earlier than they have been in the past and that truthfully there hasn't been a nominated candidate this early. If it goes to June that won't really be abnormal. Now, there is debate as to whether the in-fight hurts the Democrats overall. I think you see the divisions becoming harsh, with people like KoL not willing to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee and Sal above not wanting to vote Obama should he get the nomination. I don't know how the numbers have changed as far as voter satisfaction regarding either.

It's going to go on, though. This thread might reach 150 pages before the nomination is moot.

Update:

So it seems like Mc. Cain won every state in this Primary run, which suprised me because I'd thought Huckabee would at least get Texas, one of the reddest state there is.

As of right now (which would be 12:31AM EST on 3/5/08), the Democrats race is this

Obama: Vermont
Clinton: Ohio, Rhode Island

Texas is still being too closed to call.

I now expect Obama to take Texas, despite his deficit in the votes counted so far. The city results are late coming in, particularly in Houston. Mathematically, those votes are most likely to put him over the top.

I now expect Obama to take Texas, despite his deficit in the votes counted so far. The city results are late coming in, particularly in Houston. Mathematically, those votes are most likely to put him over the top.

Yea, but because Hillary won Ohio, she'll stay in the race.

CNN is calling Texas for Clinton. Looks like the Obama Momentum Train has been derailed as of right now.

I now expect Obama to take Texas, despite his deficit in the votes counted so far. The city results are late coming in, particularly in Houston. Mathematically, those votes are most likely to put him over the top.
Apparently not. The primary goes to Clinton. (at least according to CNN)

The caucus looks to be going to Obama.

I now expect Obama to take Texas, despite his deficit in the votes counted so far. The city results are late coming in, particularly in Houston. Mathematically, those votes are most likely to put him over the top.

Better happen soon, then, since they've counted nearly 80% of the vote. Also, overstimating the black vote is, well, let's just say 'historically unwise.' ;)

CNN is calling Texas for Clinton. Looks like the Obama Momentum Train has been derailed as of right now.

Jesus Christ, does no one have a dimmer? Is everything a switch to you people? 51-49% in a state that had double digits leads three weeks ago doesn't really mean that he's 'derailed.' Yes, it's a big win for Clinton, yes it will give her some strength into the next races, but seriously, 'derailed'? Is anyone capable of thinking in degrees instead of all or nothing?

And that Obama staffer stole my groundhog line! That bastard!

Well they're beginning to call Texas for Senator Clinton - I'm not fully sure since I don't know the city voter numbers - as in how many voters there are - but, either way, it's going to be close enough to say neither really won and, in a fair world, given his position 2 weeks ago, you could say Senator Obama was the winner.

If it had been good majority for her in Ohio and the same for him in Texas, I'd say it would be better for her to pull out. As it stands, I think she's still got a good case.

Does anyone know how Texas works? I understand it's a slightly complex process.

What's up with switching threads ya bastards?

I got the point the first time around, thanks. ;) Really, you can take a dozen different legal points and conflicts, mix in a little Bush = Hitler, and pin a whole litany of complaints and abuses on the current president, from Abu Ghraib to the CIA pouring water on three people without a trial. If you subtract the fundamental malevolent attribution needed to make the argument, you aren't left with much. Figure in that Iraq doesn't happen without Clinton-era measures and sanctions, and you have even less. I'll agree that the comparison isn't worth much, and I don't base my support or non-support of a candidate on comparison to former leaders except in rare incidences. I'm content to leave the past where it is, for the most part. :)

Heh. This always cracks me. Just keep waving your hands and telling us this isn't the President we're looking for. Iraq doesn't happen unless we attack them. Clinton didn't order the attack, did he? Oh, yeah, that's right.

However, I don't need for Bush to be malevolent for him to be responsible for his administration openly attacking the rights of Americans across the board and attacking Iraq on a lie.

Your counter-argument is "um, well, Clinton banged an intern and sanctioned Iraq. That's much worse."

Bush isn't the past. He's sullied the name of Americans across the world. He's proven, not maybe, not kind of, not sort of, to be an terrible force in American history and the history of the world. I challenge you to talk about the highlights of Bush? There aren't any. He botched TWO wars. He was terrible domestically. He mishandled every single power given to him. That you'd compare that to Clinton is just amazing. I mean, at least pick a Dem that did similar terrible things.

Well they're beginning to call Texas for Senator Clinton - I'm not fully sure since I don't know the city voter numbers - as in how many voters there are - but, either way, it's going to be close enough to say neither really won and, in a fair world, given his position 2 weeks ago, you could say Senator Obama was the winner.

If it had been good majority for her in Ohio and the same for him in Texas, I'd say it would be better for her to pull out. As it stands, I think she's still got a good case.

Does anyone know how Texas works? I understand it's a slightly complex process.

2/3rds of their delegates are decided by the primary. Once you've voted in the primary you can then caucus, where the remaining third of the delegates are decided. I have yet to understand why.

and perhaps only in terms of votes rather than delegates. i expect that obama will end the night farther ahead in the delegate count than he went into it.

The what now? :p Vermont gave him four. Losing TX, RI and OH will lose him more than four. Not sure where you're getting a positive number for him.

Well they're beginning to call Texas for Senator Clinton - I'm not fully sure since I don't know the city voter numbers - as in how many voters there are - but, either way, it's going to be close enough to say neither really won and, in a fair world, given his position 2 weeks ago, you could say Senator Obama was the winner.

If it had been good majority for her in Ohio and the same for him in Texas, I'd say it would be better for her to pull out. As it stands, I think she's still got a good case.

Does anyone know how Texas works? I understand it's a slightly complex process.

Well, it appears the caucuses are as expected going hard for Obama. That's a third of the delegates. It looks fairly apparent that he'll come out ahead in Texas. She had a great showing tonight. However, I doubt she closes the gap by 30 delegates and there are only 600 delegates left.

What's up with switching threads ya bastards?

Sorry, I wanted to go where my prediction was more accurate, but after I read it it wasn't as much as I thought. It was more accurate than the one in here, but still...

Sorry, I wanted to go where my prediction was more accurate, but after I read it it wasn't as much as I thought. It was more accurate than the one in here, but still...

Typical politician :)

Apparently not. The primary goes to Clinton. (at least according to CNN)

and perhaps only in terms of votes rather than delegates. overall, i expect that obama will end the night farther ahead in the delegate count than he went into it. hooray for an awesomely arcane delegate distribution process.

The what now? :p Vermont gave him four. Losing TX, RI and OH will lose him more than four. Not sure where you're getting a positive number for him.

because ohio will be within 10, and it is probably a tie if not an outright win for him in the texas primary - a large part of hc votes came in from districts with few delegates, while obama did quite well where the delegates are (see, for example, here (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg)). add in the almost certain win in the texas caucuses and i'm betting on positive numbers overall.

Typical politician :)

Pff, I didn't even take a politics course for my GE in college...

Heh. This always cracks me. Just keep waving your hands and telling us this isn't the President we're looking for. Iraq doesn't happen unless we attack them. Clinton didn't order the attack, did he? Oh, yeah, that's right.

Context matters, sure. I don't recall that being an unorthodox position. The president didn't just up and decide to attack Iraq, is the point.

However, I don't need for Bush to be malevolent for him to be responsible for his administration openly attacking the rights of Americans across the board and attacking Iraq on a lie.

Your counter-argument is "um, well, Clinton banged an intern and sanctioned Iraq. That's much worse."

Bush isn't the past. He's sullied the name of Americans across the world. He's proven, not maybe, not kind of, not sort of, to be an terrible force in American history and the history of the world. I challenge you to talk about the highlights of Bush? There aren't any. He botched TWO wars. He was terrible domestically. He mishandled every single power given to him. That you'd compare that to Clinton is just amazing. I mean, at least pick a Dem that did similar terrible things.

That's neither my point nor my 'counter-argument.' I was simply clarifying for a foreigner the difference between teleological and deontological ethics re: our political system, which I think is pretty funny given the way the popular culture likes to make the same observation - I could care less about Clinton, not just because he was inconsequential, but because he is increasingly inconsequential. :p Needless to say, I don't think Bush has 'botched' either war, or is terrible domestically, etc. I don't feel the need to make comparisons between him and Clinton, and I wasn't making any to begin with - I was comparing the ways parties and people talk about our politicians, using the temporal direction of explanation, not the reverse. ;)

Edit: just noticed how long this post was: apologies to everyone else for the distraction.

Pff, I didn't even take a politics course for my GE in college...

It wasn't mandatory? Wish it wasn't for me - boy, what a flake my professor for GE 'politics and policy' was. :p

The what now? :p Vermont gave him four. Losing TX, RI and OH will lose him more than four. Not sure where you're getting a positive number for him.
Texas is so crazy, he'll come out ahead like in Nevada. In both primary and caucus.

The situation has gotten worse

Texas

76 percent reporting

Clinton 51% -- 1,223,621
Obama 48% -- 1,142,951

At 47.34%, it'd be better math to round it down to 47%.

Still, don't worry, Free Soviets has provided a handy link to show that Senator Obama gains more delegates - 64-62 at the moment I think.

EDIT: Oops, it seems to have changed: 65-61 for Senator Clinton

Link (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pJ0M6W5tNQCPLz7oU3-llfg)

Texas is so crazy, he'll come out ahead like in Nevada. In both primary and caucus.

If you say so. He'd need a good showing to offset Hillary's 13 delegate gain today, but if it's possible we'll see soon enough.

Obama tried to cheat in Texas.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/team-clinton-charges-obama-supporters-of-hijacking-caucuses/

Thats what Clinton's camp claims........

The situation has gotten worse

Texas

76 percent reporting

Clinton 51% -- 1,223,621
Obama 48% -- 1,142,951

More delegates, thats good.

Caucuses 5% of precincts reporting

Obama 56 %
Clinton 44 %

I was mistaken alas.

Obama is going to get elected, but Dr. Ron Paul is our only real hope.

For some reason I'm picturing that part in the original Star Wars where the Leia hologram says, "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope." :p:confused:

Obama tried to cheat in Texas.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/team-clinton-charges-obama-supporters-of-hijacking-caucuses/

At 47.34%, it'd be better math to round it down to 47%.

Still, don't worry, Free Soviets has provided a handy link to show that Senator Obama gains more delegates - 64-62 at the moment I think.

More delegates, thats good.

Caucuses 5% of precincts reporting

Obama 56 %
Clinton 44 %

Context matters, sure. I don't recall that being an unorthodox position. The president didn't just up and decide to attack Iraq, is the point.

It would be nice if it were more than that, but really it appears that's about the amount of prep work he did. I'll say I certainly believed at the time he'd put more effort into it. Then I watched the victory declaration and thought that this man must have failed history.


That's neither my point nor my 'counter-argument.' I was simply clarifying for a foreigner the difference between teleological and deontological ethics re: our political system, which I think is pretty funny given the way the popular culture likes to make the same observation - I could care less about Clinton, not just because he was inconsequential, but because he is increasingly inconsequential. :p Needless to say, I don't think Bush has 'botched' either war, or is terrible domestically, etc. I don't feel the need to make comparisons between him and Clinton, and I wasn't making any to begin with - I was comparing the ways parties and people talk about our politicians, using the temporal direction of explanation, not the reverse. ;)

Edit: just noticed how long this post was: apologies to everyone else for the distraction.

If you don't think he botched both wars, then I question your definition of botched. He declared victory before stabilization occurred. He utterly failed to focus on the justified war and to accomplish any of our goals. Neither country is remotely stable, none of our goals have been accomplished, terrorism continues to be a threat, Bin Laden walks the earth free and 100,000 people are dead. Yup. You're right. All good outcomes really.

And, I'm not democrat. I think the democrats and the republicans are both terrible parties.