Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

In Case Anyone Hasn't Figured It Out Yet, Obama Saying He Would Bomb Bin Laden Where Ever He Found Him Was nothing But Empty Rhetoric.

[sck5]

"But thanks to your side, we have a recent record of never following through"

Sorry rags. That recent record is all yours. FYI, Bush is a Republican.

And nobody was advocating nuking Pakistan. When we find al Qaeda people it seems that cruise missiles, drones, etc. do the trick, though I would be happy to send the Marines to do the job if necessary.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by sck5

Actually, he [Obama] said he would bomb Osama IF he were found, wherever he is, including Pakistan. You would be against that?

That sounds like the same old doublespeak that we've heard from every politician. I thought Obama was supposed to be different - a "change." He promises to bomb Bin Laden IF he can find him. Hell, I don't have the slightest doubt that President Bush will bomb Bin Laden IF he can find him. Nor do I doubt that McCain will bomb him IF he can find him. Finding him is the hard part. Bombing him will be the easy part. The question is, how is Obama going to find him, so that he can bomb him? So far, President Bush has restrained himself from invading Pakistan, an apparently friendly nation, and having our troops search every hut and turn over every rock. Is Obama going to invade Pakistan? What if Bin Laden flees to France? Is Obama going to send thousands of troops into France to search every apartment in Paris? The plain truth is that you don't have a clue, and neither does Obama.

There is such a thing as "hot pursuit".

Yes, but this isn't a hot pursuit, and you obviously don't understand the meaning of the term. A hot pursuit is a situation in which the authorities are engaged in an on-going chase of a person, closely behind him, and he crosses a border. If a treaty exists that authorizes it, the authorities may continue the chase across the border and apprehend the person inside the borders of the foreign country. This isn't a hot pursuit. The US isn't close on the heels of a fleeing fugitive. Bin Laden is already in Pakistan. Going after Bin Laden would certainly constitute a "pursuit," but not a "hot" pursuit. It would also constitute a completely unauthorized invasion.

What ever happened to getting him "dead or alive"? I know. G. W. Bush took his eye off the ball and got more interested in a new war before finishing off the old one. I am not alone in saying that the ONE objective he ought to have focused on was tracking down Osama and killing him.

President Bush still has the better part of a year to finish the job. You don't think he's planning on leaving that job for Obama or Hillary to complete, do you? If that's what you think, you still don't understand President George W. Bush.

[sck5]

"You don't think he's planning on leaving that job for Obama or Hillary to complete, do you?"

As it happens, thats exactly what I think. But I would love to be proved wrong.

And on going after him in Pakistan - You are (all of you) certainly correct that it would cause big problems with the Pakis. It would have been FAR easier to justify if it were done in actual hot pursuit right after Tora Bora when he got away. So there is a case to be made that the mistake of not following him isnt one that can be fixed at this late date. But there is a BIG difference between Pakistan and France. I dont have the slightest doubt that France would immediately arrest him. The Pakistanis have decided to stop trying to get him. See here:

http://threatswatch.org/inbrief/2006...dsoff-agreeme/

I have to say, these guys are not very good allies. In fact, they are behaving not much better than the Taliban if these reports (and there are more of them) are true. See here too

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0906/dailyUpdate.html

or here

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/457rzpvh.asp

or here (where a co-chair of the 9/11 commission agrees with me)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...tan/index.html

[PBzeer]

When the military didn't seem to be getting the job done, it was ... withdraw the troops. Then came the surge, and it worked, so instead, the focus was meeting political benchmarks. Now the benchmarks are being met, so it's, why haven't we got bin Ladin. God only knows what the excuse would be if we got him.

bin Ladin is not an end, only a part. Why this incessant worry about him is beyond me. Other than it puts the other sucesses out of view.

If your boat is sinking, you don't worry about what gets wet, you worry about getting the water out of the boat. Concentrating on trival matters is a long standing tactic of the left, to avoid addressing actual substantative concerns.

[PBzeer]

Now that McCain, the favorite GOP candidate of the left, appears to have won the nomination, the NYT's fires the first salvo across his bows.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...gewanted=print

Guess you didn't quite suck up enough Johnny Boy.

And on to the other presumptive candidate. After declaring the the Second Amendment guarntees the right of citizens to bear arms, Mr Obama has come out, four square, for the DC gun ban, which totally eliminates the right to bear arms (except for criminals of course, since they don't obey the law anyway).

So, the question is, which side of the issue is Obama ACTUALLY on?

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Now that McCain, the favorite GOP candidate of the left, appears to have won the nomination, the NYT's fires the first salvo across his bows.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...gewanted=print

Guess you didn't quite suck up enough Johnny Boy.

Not to worry. As luck would have it, the formerly presumptive future first husband-in-waiting already proved that marital fidelity isn't a prerequisite for a president.

[sck5]

You seem to think that libs are inventing new excuses as we go. While some of that certainly goes on, I dont think that is a fair criticism in this argument.

Actually, getting Osama was not only MY original desire, it was Bush's and everyone else's. Criticizing Bush for that failure is as old as the fight at Tora Bora.

And a lot of us never wanted to go into Iraq in the first place so that isnt a new thought either.

And those political benchmarks are being met? News to me. Every time they seem to be getting somewhere it falls apart. Still no progress on the one big one they have to do - divide up the oil money. yes I know they claim they are getting along well with the sunni local guys - well yes, if you stop hunting them and start arming them they will be friendlier. But all that means for the overall political reconciliation is that now we have armed ALL THREE sides of this conflict. What a mess

And on the McCain bimbo eruption, it is being reported on the tv that the people who broke the story first were Drudge and Limbaugh. The NYT ran the story after it became clear that it was going big time with or without them.

So it seems that this is an example of the GOP right wing hating on McCain, something that is not new and not a surprise either.

On the DC gun ban, I hadnt heard that. Gun laws here in NY are pretty relaxed for long guns and pretty harsh on handguns. It is a result of the compromise between upstate hunters and downstate urbanites. It works for us. DC is a bit of a special case - If they were actually in charge of their own affairs then they could vote and have whatever gun laws they like (and there isnt much doubt they would vote to not have any - I used to live in DC and parts of it are a real war zone). But as I understand it, they are subject to the whims of Congress, so I wonder what could actually be done? What are gun laws now? I once took a wrong turn in DC and found myself on a street where guys were openly carrying what looked like M16's and uzis. I got the hell out of there pretty quick you can bet.