Posted on 02/25/2008 1:07:24 PM PST by mdittmar
DEMOCRATIC presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton called rival Barack Obama a risky choice to lead US foreign policy even as Obama gained ground on her in the battleground US state of Ohio today.
In a foreign policy speech, Senator Clinton said Senator Obama had veered between pledging to meet leaders of hostile nations such as Iran and Cuba if elected in November to warning of US military action against al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.
"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve the world's intractable problems, to advocating rash, unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world," Senator Clinton said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Breaking News on WORLD NET DAILY about Obama support for terrorist organization. I sent article to Jim Robinson.
She is correct. He is too risky ...
As opposed to Hillary just being too risque.
“...unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world...”
Yea, Evita, Kerry didn’t get too far with his ‘global test’ either! Stick it!
thats it hellary...scare the crap out of those ohio voters
I have been going through stacks of old newspapers that I never had a chance to read while dealing with family emergencies last decade. They range from 1992 to 2000. I was surprised to see how much bombing and other military action had been done by our government to and about Iraq during that period. Also how many concerns were raised about Iran. I hope to pull some of this together and post a “vanity” sometime soon using some of this material. I think that Hillary probably has a much clearer picture of how bad the bad guys are than does Obama.
Is he a RISKY SCHEME”???
Where’s the Captain Obvious graphic?
p.s. The rest of the story is that she isn’t any better.
IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
My popcorn just finished cooking...
As opposed to Hillary just being too risque.
::::::
When it comes to the radical socialists, everything is relative. How could ANYONE be more risky than the Clintons? They have ALREADY PROVEN IT. China-Gate anyone, just for openers. It does not matter which radical socialist runs for President — they are all going to sing from the same sheet of socialist music, and from the lib playbook. They will dismantle America via the SCOTUS and the burning of the Constitution — that is where the risk is.
Yeah...but then we get McCain.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1975778/posts?page=69#69
In 52 seconds why Obama will not win a general election!
If I had to choose the lesser of two evils I would have to choose Hillary hands down simply because I would rather face the known evil than risk the unknown, and that is exactly what Obamam is.
Both will be a horrible choice to take the oath, but we know Hillary and can at least anticipate what she will do in most situations. Obama on the other hand you might as well start looking at your tea leaves to get an idea of what is going on in his head.
That is the truly scary thing of this entire election cycle is people willing to trust our nation at a time of war to someone who they know next to nothing about.
Do you ever wonder why Dems condemn things as “risky”? E.g. SS reform was “a risky scheme”.
The reason is that in all of the internal polling, those who identify as Dems and Dem-leaning independents tend to be highly risk-averse. They view risk as something to be avoided at all costs.
Osama! Obama! He’ll make Big Gov yo’ Moma!
But clean
It is the Koran and Hadith:
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power."
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
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.