On Friday, Pakistanis took to the streets to protest Obama's invasion threats.
Of course, US flags were also torched.
Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)
Pakistani officials also blasted Obama for his irresponsible remarks of a unilateral invasion.
ABC reported:
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.President George W. Bush telephoned President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Friday to allaeviate fears of the Pakistani administration.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Pakistani tribal protesters gather to condemn the U.S. presidential hopeful candidate Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Miran Shah, capital of Pakistan's tribal area of north Waziristan along the Afghanistan border. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. Speakers told protesters that they will fight back in case of U.S. strikes. (AP Photo/Abdullah Noor)
Pakistani protesters hold placards condemning U.S. policy during a rally to protest against U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Lahore, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. Placard at bottom left reads 'Down with America.' (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary)
UPDATE: Obama effigy is torched:
Pakistani protestors chant anti American slogans after setting on fire the effigies of U.S. President George W. Bush, center, Republican Tom Tancredo, left, and U.S. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, right, at a protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan on Sunday, August 5, 2007. Protesters criticized to Tancredo and Obama for allegedly making irresponsible statements on military strikes against Muslims and bombing on the Islamic holiest sites, Mecca and Medina. (AP Photo/K.M.Chaudary)
Aw gee! You can't mean this Obama, can you?...ROFLMAO!
ReplyDelete(thank you Dan Riehl)
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIt appears to be the mark of a strong Democratic Party candidate to use threatening language and insults towards our allies in the war on terror. John Kerry did it on a weekley basis. I contend the democrats and their allies in the press are purposely slandering the USA with daily printed and broadcast disinformation. Their slander is the source of our injured standing in the world community and not the war on terror.
Thanks Beto- There is no doubt that the democrat's constant attacks and slander against this government has damaged the US in the world community.
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, we all know about democrats and their false threats of bravado.
these particular protests were probably organized by the Pakistan campaign to elect Hillary!
ReplyDeleteAmateur hour IE the Obama campaign is nearly coming to an end. This guy is such a lightweight and an empty suit. The Jackass party should be embarrassed that he can attract so much in campaign contributions. He has probably blown his chances to be VP as well unless the Clintons have become even dumber since leaving Washington. Funny, I do not hear conservative bloggers kissing Obama's butt like they used to. I rarely hear things like "Obama is articulate" or "Obama is an intelligent guy." I spotted this lightweight 2 years ago when he made his nothing speech at John stuck in Iraq Kerry's DNC. Go away Obama, let the adults run for president....clown.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeletehell, at least they're openly burning a US flag in peaceful protest.. whereas Obama is symbolically doing it under political pretense (or something like that).. ;)
==
Taken in totality, I'm not sure the sight of Pakistanis protesting Obama and burning US flags hurts his campaign. I'm a cynic, yes. This does far less damage to Obama than his pledge to sit down and talk to every tin-pot dictator with a grudge against our country. One might actually consider it to be a calculated and successful ploy on his part to overcome the devastating comment about meeting w/Chavez, Castro et al.
ReplyDeleteWhat it does vis a vis our foreign policy is another matter entirely. Obviously, there was damage done. But again, given the Dem primary voter, not sure how this hurts him. His/their view is that our foreign policy is wrong, at best, illegitimate at worst.
I did notice one thing. At least in this anti-American rally the placards are not written in English like all the ones are that protest Pres Bush.
ReplyDeleteGoes to show that the DNC is not sponsoring this one.
You republicans don't mind lying do you? He didn't pledge to ignore Al Qaeda in Iraq, he said he would hunt them down wherever they are, even if it meant invading Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteLet's start telling the truth now, shall we?
Let's remember Terry, it was you and your fellow travelers that whined like stuck pigs when Bush decided to fight back...
ReplyDeleteSo in your sleazy and seditious way you and your fellow travelers did your best to undercut the United States in protecting itself...
So as a dhimmi are you waiting with bated breath for your Nick Berg haircut?
Well said, Mr. Bondurant.
ReplyDeleteOh glory be... It was initially entertaining but now it's just sad to repeatedly see republicans attacking any and all DNC members.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are Blaming the people trying to deal with the mess and not the spoiled brat who caused it. Hilarious! Denial is a powerful thing.
This in response to all the people ragging on Obama...sure he's wetnosed but surely your IQ must have dropped like the DOW if you think Bush should remain in office. Bush wouldn't last a WEEK in the corporate world.
You are so right Anon,bushwhacker made a big mess that dems have to clean up,no bushwhacker running our country in the groundvxomko
ReplyDelete.These typical comments by some is one of the reasons we are all screwed up.
ReplyDeleteObama is not the way out... if you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteRalf Nader might be, considering his Lebanese descent, such things are sure noticed by whom you would like to notice. It would prove that America is not the monster as it seems.
I been following him since 1969, even then there were comments that he is "presidential stuff", he did a lot of good things, cleaned up the nursing homes, brought in laws for anti pollution devices, he is the only one who realized that if corporations are not being supervised by a security system, they would sell their own mothers for profit...and they did !!
Just like in the TV serial NUMBERS, the entire US intelligence system was hijacked around 1970, and since then it's being run by the hijackers. Do I have to mention who ?? Yes, the good friend of America, that can not be mentioned in the press under these accusations.
That is what is happening in a nut shell. Bye for now, I have to go now and analyze my mentally sick treasonous accusations.....
++
ReplyDeleteREPUBLICANS?? LYING?? BWAHAHAHA!!
Democratic Opponents Slam Barack Obama For Speech on Pakistan
excerpt:
[In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C., — billed as a major foreign policy address — Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."]
Earth to Obama etal.. we are "on the
battlefield" in Iraq & in Afghanistan..
Osama bin Laden calls Baghdad the "Epicenter" of Jihad..
excerpt:
[Osama did address Iraq's place in al-Qaeda's plans and the country's importance in the global jihad. Last fall, Ayman al-Zawahiri stated Iraq is the central front in the war and referred to the country as "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." bin Laden agrees:
The epicentre of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the khalifate rule. They keep reiterating that success in Baghdad will be success for the US, failure in Iraq the failure of the US.]
go fig..
at any rate, as a non-Rep, registered ex-member of the "party no more".. i say, forget the flowers, where have all the JF & RF Kennedy's gone.. *sigh*
==
I wonder what would happen if an American burned a flag of another country here in the U S every time we did'nt like what someone said about us,it seems these donkeys do not need much incentive to do it.
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight -- the Democrats are responsible for frittering away our post-911 international goodwill. Naturally, it couldn't possibly have had anything to do with our idiot president's deception-based, illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq that the entire world was against. Oh no, it's all been Barack Obama from the getgo, making third-world faces frown. I can't believe people are this stupid.
ReplyDeleteI think we should re-name him "Dumb-Bama"! Where does the Jackass Party find these complete and utter idiots????????????????
ReplyDeleteWait a second. Now just think, what if Obama is right. Everone knows by now we should not be in Iraq.That is Bushs little war. And why can"t we find Osama Bin laden? You should know by now that the Bin-laden family And Bush family are very close. There is a lot more to this story,What the Hell is the matter with people. I was a republican.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you were q republican aand then changed, hmmm, so did I. I see it like this now, if you close one eye you cannot tell the parties a part anymore. Both are full of fanatics and low lifes and those that have a brain are slandered because they have half an idea of what is going on. You know republicans forgot somewhere along the line they are American first and political party member second. Jesus would you people get a clue!
ReplyDeletei would never consider myself a republican but i would rather have bush over obama anyday! Im starting to question his IQ. If he did a little reading he would have known that invading a country that has nuclear weapons isnt the smartest idea.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeletelol. i see the BDS brigades offer absolutely no proof to back up their assertions & accusations.. typical, all bray & no hay..
==
++
ReplyDeleteflashbacks for the 'stuck on square' one clowns..
what Bush said (not what the MSM says he said)..
excerpts:
[If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.]
what Bush knew & what he didn't
know (& everyone else as well)..
excerpts:
[Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.]
[Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.]
[If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.]
what everyone else was saying..
["I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002]
["In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002]
["As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002]
["We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."
Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002 ]
tons more @ link..
==
you see...this is why some people would rather just have anarchy....I don't think the world is mature enough to handle that, but I can see why people would want that. Because we have old white men, stuck in their old ways, trying to run things the way THEY think things should be. Some base it off of money (like us, America), some on religion, and others on lands and borders. It's all just one big globnal pissing contest that sooner or later we all have to realize that no one is going to win this, but all will lose. There are children dying of AIDS in Africa, east Europe, and problems down in South America with their children....
ReplyDeleteand we can all argue here about which country has the biggest dicks, but in the end, we will all kill each other over it. Now, I'm not trying to sound like some hippie, but, we should've learned from our past mistakes that what we're doing to our planet, and our people is gonna kill us all, and the people in power in our, and countries abroad, don't seem to give a crap. Okay, so Obama said some things that were a little taboo, but you same boneheads who were all about kicking ass in Iraq and in Afganistan, are suddenly all like "oh, noooo. I can't believe he's such an idiot for wanting to invade Pakistan". For some of you out there, they're all just another bunch of muslims to you. So why do you all NOW care? It is just because he wears the title of DEMOCRAT, that screws with you all, and that is why many of us don't trust republicans in office. You guys come off as real warmongers when one of your good ol' boys is running the show, but when someone else takes the wheel, it's a problem. I don't care about the party, I just care about getting the right things done, without pushing everyone else around. If we act like we have all the answers, why should we even have to drop one bomb, or fire one bullet? Btw, have any of you guys been to any of these countries before? I have....and our "image" has been messed up ever since Reagan! We didn't need Obama to make a few mislead remarks to mess it up. Sorry, you all...don't mean to rant, but that's what this wall is for.
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 6:10 PM
um, i believe it was Truman(D) who dropped the big one on Japan.. regardless, i thank God someone had the balls to stop the insanity in it's tracks.. however, that is exactly what Bush is not only trying to do, but avoid doing via the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and wherever else the war of terrorism that has been declared on US by Islamofascists may lead..
"On Moral Equivalency and Cold War History"
excerpts:
[But that in turn raises another interesting question of comparative morality: would an authoritarian system - one based on an ideology that explicitly justified any means necessary to achieve its ends, one that employed terror as a method of government, and one as casual about the loss of human life as were Stalin's and Mao's - have shown similar restraint had it got the bomb first?]
[We need to be careful about the methodological metaphors we keep in our minds. Too much of Cold War history was written as if its major contenders were indeed featureless billiard balls, whose internal composition and character didn't much matter. In retrospect, apples and oranges might have been the better metaphor: at least it would have allowed for irregularity, asymmetry, and the possibility of internal rot.]
Is It Right to Fight?
excerpts:
[One other point, if everyone was a pacifist except the evil and lawbreakers of the world, then the world would be run by evil dictators or our society would be anarchy.
Pacifism in its fullest sense is untenable in the sinful world in which we live.]
[The subject "Is it right to fight?" is a difficult issue because it makes us face the awful issues of a suppressive dictatorship, evil aggression, killing and death on the one hand and the "necessary evil" of war to stop it. Could this be the reason that General Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Fredericksburg said, "It is well that war is so terrible—we should grow too fond of it." The just war position, in the writer's opinion, fits best with the Scriptural evidence.
Remember, it is possible to love your enemies and use force against him. The principle that love is embraced in laws of justice helps us see that loving one's enemy is to make sure that justice prevails. In doing so, the Christian is also demonstrating "love for the ones his enemy has hurt."]
all sane people from all walks of life would love nothing better than to pass that peacepipe & sing kumbaya.. unfortunately, even if somehow all materialistic, spiritualistic, racial, etc.. barriers were removed.. the one irrefutable fact remaining is that evil would still exist in this world.. hence, peace is just a delusion, the various barriers being tools used as excuses for denying reality..
==
Americans do not need to burn flag of any country, they can always kill 100,000 civilians from 50,000 feet.
ReplyDeleteOh geez! Are we awash in the sea of idiotic but proudly clueless libtards today!
ReplyDeleteterry in a fit delusional nonsense asks: "You republicans don't mind lying do you? He didn't pledge to ignore Al Qaeda in Iraq"...
Hmmm, wasn't listen or maybe was listening selectively ... Typical...
Ah*le @5:04 whines witlessly: "Everone knows by now we should not be in Iraq.That is Bushs little war. And why can"t we find Osama Bin laden? You should know by now that the Bin-laden family And Bush family are very close"...
Oh yeah! who's everyone? Liars like the dope from Hope maybe?
Ah*le @ 10:28 whines: "You guys are Blaming the people trying to deal with the mess and not the spoiled brat who caused it. Hilarious! Denial is a powerful thing"
You mean you are a Clintonista who's finally ready to admit that Clinton's abysmal record in terrorists affairs while defiling the Oval Office is now on record?
Maybe you sniveling libtards should consider reading Give War a Chance
++
ReplyDeleteanonymous @ 8:12 PM
as horrific as it was, that reminds me that of how lucky we were on 9/11.. some 60,000 body bags were requested.. had so many not managed to either escape or be rescued from the WTC buildings before they collapsed.. the death toll would have been much greater (same goes for the Pentagon had it been hit more strategically, which often makes me wonder if the passengers may have had a hand in that.. as well as what was avoided via the heroism of the passengers on PA flight 93)..
==
==
ReplyDeletejuandos.. i'm confused.. isn't "the dope from Hope" from Crawford?? :D
==
Good Job! :)
ReplyDelete