Posted on 08/03/2007 9:17:13 PM PDT by gpapa
With Hillary Clinton's lead growing, Barack Obama appears to be overreaching to keep the spotlight and highlight their differences.
His suggestion that sex education begin in kindergarten seems a great leap forward even for a liberal Democrat. While Barack says it must be "age-appropriate" sex education, one need not be Roger Ailes to imagine what the GOP oppo-research boys can do with this one.
In the CNN-You Tube debate, Barack, asked if he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea in his first year as president "without precondition," blurted yes.
Should he get the nomination, imagine an ad twinning photos of Obama and Fidel (or brother Raoul), Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, titled, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner at Barack's House?"
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Why should American soldiers, Marines, and sailors be willing to go into a hard fight in Pakistan, under a leader who has abandoned them in lesser battles?
And we get to watch the show and attempt to avoid projectile vomiting!
Vote Duncan Hunter!
This article correctly notes B. Hussein Obama is an idiot, but then descends into a mindless rant about how Americans can never ever go into a “Muslim” country because it infuriates the natives and doesn’t make us safer. Cr*p.
“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
****
Clever play on words by Paddy J.
Obama: All skin and no cattle.
Pat B. still doesn't get it. He's made of paper. I'm not rewarding dangerous campaign rhetoric by telling Pat his perception of Middle Eastern affairs is equally, if not more so, dangerous. Barak's mistake is talking tough to a region that knows he has limited power to invade, at least not yet. What power he has, he's only exercised on the campaign trail. To them, he's a fake. But Pat's commentary is worse. Iranian intransigence is a function of seeing the good in doing nothing. How can anyone advocate passivity when our peace keepers are killed in cold blood? What time frame is Pat suggesting Hizballah attacks stopped? Does he not attribute Hassan Nasrallah's vitriol to part of the larger equation of Middle Eastern relations? Hizballah's Beirut attack and Weinberger's subsequent response granted psychological permission to every anti-American force in the region to fulfill Ibn Tamiya's 13th century teachings. After that act of impotence, no one in the region needed to be thought that Americans were made of paper. They witnessed with their own eyes. In a region where strength, fear and respect are three sides of the same coin, weakness is reviled.
If the analogy was intended to bleed into the 2008 race, it's out of line.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. MLK
Well, Barack just tacitly certified Hillary as the Democrats' nominee in the upcoming election.
"U.S. troops in an Arab or Muslim country are more likely to create an insurgency than quell one."
Something for the French and the rest of the Western Europeans to think about if they're counting on the U.S. to rescue them again--especially after they have become an Islamic theocracy.
The parties’ leadership, proposed leadership correctly reflects its base, and in this case it is fatally base.
i am not a buchanan fan by any stretch-he may be right on such issues as immigration-but a stopped clock is right twice a day-however,here his point is well-made in one respect-obama has obviously not studied the history of the area-going back from the recent past before us troops were in afghanistan let’s take a look-the russians never controlled the border area during their campaign in afghanistan-they were lucky to hang on to the cities;the british spent a long time in the area,known as the northwest frontier and during the 19th century fought numerous wars and mounted campaigns that came to be known as the afghan wars,and the pathan campaigns carried out by field forces largely composed of indigineous troops of the british indian army,a well-disciplined force that shared the high standards of the british army-excepting the sepoy mutiny of 1857 they were a reliable force and they couldn’t control the area,so where does obama get his ideas from?the pakistani army can’t exert any effective force in the area-check out a british tv series from the ‘80s called “traffik”-it shows the area for what it is-no man’s land-the”wild east” if you will-soderbergh borrowed from the series for his film “traffic”about the mexican drug trade-the last successful military campaign in this area was led by alexander the great in the 4th century bc-does obama think he’s the reincarnation of alexander-does he even know much about alexander’s campaigns?i think obama better do a little reading on world history before he comes up with unworkable plans-in any event i can’t see him as president-he is pro-abortion;anti-gun;pro high tax,and has absolutely no legislative track record in terms of submittting bills in either the illinois or us senate-he is an empty barrel that makes a lot of noise and contains only air
Pat served in the Nixon adminstration, when Nixon was trying to smash the Vietcong and knock out the supply lines in Cambodia, and you had the same gang of defeatist lefties calling our soldiers baby killers, mercenaries, and the like. Doesn’t he see the parallels?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.