Oh god, not another Clinton presidency! More welfare "reform", war crimes, corporate pandering, flight of U.S. jobs in the name of "free trade", abandonment of foreign human rights workers, and a growing gap between rich and poor. And we wonder why Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan White House adviser has asked Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries? Oh well, at least we'll have a woman president.

Sorry rob but "Iraq/Saddam /UBL/ yellow-cake scenario " is not in any way related to preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan when its well within our power to make Pakistan pull out all stops in helping reign in the Taliban. Why should the Taliban become an Afghani problem when its been nurtured by Pakistan ?

Obama says it like it is and also what a lot of people are atually thinking, without hiding behind 'politics' like Hillary. He is absolutely right in that Hillary is CheneyLite. Im not sure he can send troops into Pakistan without the support of Mush !!

"He is absolutely right in that Hillary is CheneyLite."

I cheered when he called Hilary Bush-Cheney-Lite,but then he comes out with this nonsense. He subscribes to the Bush doctrine of aggressive war with its slogan "No options off the table", even while saying that he would talk immediately with the leaders of those on the ruling class' no-talk-list.

He still kowtows to AIPAC and all the anti-Venezuelan, anti-Iranian bunch that governs at both ends of Penn. Ave.

More chest-thumping for the bankrollers and war profiteers from Barack Who-Can-I-Bomba.

The majority of my co-citizens may be tired of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that they're tired of the City-on-the-Hill-Last-Best-Hope-of-Mankind rhetoric.

Despite the small persistent voices of various pacifist Christians, the three who make the most of talking about the importance of their faith all want war, war, war -- where there is faith, there is always war.

Anyone who subscribes at all to the "War on Terror", in any form, is obliged to be an idiot, because the danger is always from imperialism, and 'security' and 'protecting American lives' are nothing but shorthand for 'keep the empire running.' So the House under Pelosi passes the Sept.11 commissions recommendations with only 11 voting against, because it's a vote that keeps people supporting their own occupiers, as well as the imperial occupation forces across the globe.

Idiot. Jackass. Fool.

He just reaffirmed it trying to erase the perception that he is an Idiot. Jackass. Fool.

Well, if anyone out there thought 'I'll bomb ya' offered anything other than the usual military-industrial corporatocracy that's got us where were at, Obama has removed all doubt that he's just another war-mongering shill for the Powers That Be. Not that I ever considered voting for him anyway, or Hillary.

Vern: You're right!

The Pakistani President is currently sledding on very thin ice in his own country. Pakistan has nucear weapons, as does India. Now, if Obama had a brain or any notion of history, he would know for a fact that if Pakistan allows US troops on it soil, the nation will convulse and will be taken over by those aligned by the Taliban. And they will have WMD to back them up.

If you think that bombing Iran could start WWIII, wait til you see what an incursion into Pakistan will do.

Is everyone in our government out of their minds?

Stupid question......

Vern,

That's telling it like it is.

There is no reason to be polite to corporate whore American traitors

What does Obama's service record look like?

So this is how he proves he's not "naive" - that he has "foreign policy skills"? By showing that he too can throw gasoline on the middle-east holocaust just like the experienced white guys (and gal) do?

I guess I better alter my odds on who is most likely to cause Armageddon:
Count Giuliani 50%
Hitlery, Mad McCain, and O'Bomber 40%
Thompson and Romney 30%
Edwards and Gore 10%

Rebel Farmer: That's pretty much what I was going to say. I would add only that I'm personally not a middle east expert, nor do I have any experience in global diplomacy, and I've never even visited Pakistan. And yet, somehow, even with my tremendous lack of experience in this arena, even I am not so goddamn stupid as to think Obama's idea is a good one.

Jesus GOD the mainstream Democrats suck.

The increase in support to Hillary after her comments on deplomacy with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba, only proves how the US society has become a bunch of "war-mongers". In order to gain support of these "war mongers", Obama has to please them with his plan of "destruction" of the lives of innocent people, countries which can not retaliate, and their infrastructure. Now the question is: is it the leaders of the US who want to be at war with other countries or the majority of its citizens who are forcing them to be at war? This articles highlights the latter to be true.

The other thing is: Obama wants to "wipe out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa". The question is: Does he stop US from funding some of these terrorist networks? Does he stop CIA from training, funding and arming some of these terrorist networks?????

So, Mr. Obama, first set your own country right, then you may think about other countries? Let the US stop being a terrorist sponsoring state. You know that the US is funding and arming Jundulla, a Pakistan based terrorist organisation, to destabilize Iran (this is only one example among many. You must have read the "CIA Jewels").

Let me quote Christian scripture: "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor,"Let me take the speck out of your eye," while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5). Amen!!!

Okay, now that you have all, with the exception of gyptian, heaped invective on Obama, would one of you be willing to violate the left-liberal stereotype and instead criticizing, actually suggest a better approach to handling the regrouping of Al Quaeda in North Waziristan, given Musharaff's inaction? Or do you really all believe that doing nothing is a sound stragtegy? Are the republican hawks correct in saying that those on the left don't take the threat of terrorism seriously, and just hope it will go away if we are extra nice?

I work out with a guy who just quit the special forces in Afghanistan. He said that every time they located the Al Q
forces, they would scuttle back to their bases in Pakistan. He also said that they had kidnapped several young men from the village that he was based out of and the Afghanis were very upset that the U.S. was doing nothing to prevent it. I don't know what the answer is, but having an enemy that has a safehaven 3 miles down the road is no way to fight a war.

cyon:

To solve the problem, one must understand how it arose, which is something I have endeavored to do most of my life. In this case, the question is, Why does the Taliban exist? The answer is, it exists as a vehicle to oppose imperialist designs to control Afghanistan from ALL sources--US, UK, Former USSR/Russia. As a result, and despite its harsh, faux version of Sharia, it provides social cohesion aomong the ethnic group it mostly consists of--Pushtuns--and draws its support from. Now, an important question to ask is, do the Taliban represent--have they EVER represented--a credible threat to the USA or its citizens? Remember, Mullah Omar offered to turn-in Ossama bin-Laden once provided evidence he was guilty of 9/11's orchestration; so, clearly the Taliban were NOT initially allied with Al-Qeada, nor is it clear they are currently. Another question to ask is, who are the main terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq? The answer quite clearly is the Imperalist countries through their NATO or individual efforts--Holocaust in Iraq's case. And you're concerned about the Taliban?

The actual, constant delivery of terrorism on a massive scale is a great concern to us progressives; it's just that we understand--most of the time--just WHO the primary globe-girdling terrorists are.

Nobody here has suggested that terrorists in Waziristan shouldn't be nabbed or shot. We're questioning the wisdom of Obama telling the world that he intends to do something that would cause even more anti-American sentiment.

So here's a constructive idea for Obama: if you, once President, want to send in some special forces or something and hunt down terrorists in Pakistan, then go right ahead. Just STFU about it!

So cyon -- yes, we take terrorism seriously. So seriously, in fact, that we don't want to continue making more terrorists while attempting to bring them down the way the Bush Admin has been doing for the last several years. They're like the Johnny Appleseeds of terrorism, and Obama's inflammatory remarks on this subject are just about at stupid as Bush's actions.

To all those naive sheep that think Obama is a Robert Kennedyesque rock star: get a freaking reality check will ya! Does a roof need to fall on you? This is the kind of irresponsible foolishness I would expect to hear from know nothing Republicans. That's neoconservative Democrats for you. Obama is a damn phony and a lunatic who who foment a horrible civil war in Pakistan. Talk about Bush-Cheney lite! And don't forget where Obama stood on Bush's bankruptcy bill. What's next debtor jails, eh Obama? WWIII?

He supported Joe LIEberman in his run for senator. LIEberman is Obama's mentor. He and Hillary are both warmongers and are Israel's lapdogs.

cyon,

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on Pakistan, but I believe the conventional wisdom is that Musharaff is hanging on by a thread and any US invasion would cut that thread. And the most likely outcome would be Islamic radicals taking control of Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal. And a nuclear-armed Pakiston controlled by Islamic radicals could be expected to pose a threat far exceeding that of Osama and al Qaida.

Fools rush in where the brave dare not go.

The better strategy would seem to be repairing relations with the Muslim world, but I do not see Obama or Hillary or any of the Republicans trying that approach.

Nothing like an election to bring chickenhawks out of the woodwork.

MetalDog: Thank you for your constructive idea. Quite reasonable in my view, especially the part about keeping the plan quiet. However, isn't any democratic candidate who is to have a reasonable chance of actually being elected required in the current political environment required to demonstrate is toughness on terrorism by such tough talking? I prefer Kucinic, but what are his chances realistically?

Kali: I'm neither a Republican nor neocoservative democratic. I am merely responding to the long list of what I think are childish insults (to which you have contributed) that have predominated in this conversation and contribute nothing to the quality of thought.

Kivals: Based on what I have read about the situation in Pakistan recently, the Islamic radicals are not as strong as many have claimed and Pakistan is in no real danger of falling into their hands if M falls. In fact, it appears that M is using the old stratgy of playing the liberal and conservative elements against each other to hold on to power.

It's been clear for a long time that HClinton is no more opposed to US militarism than is Bush -- if anything, she is more eager than he to do more wide-spread damage than he has done. If she believes her claim that her vote for the AUMF -- an extremely short (approximately 314 words, counting heading titles) document in which absolutely no mention is made of diplomacy -- was a mandate for Bush to go to the UN, she truly is stupid. If she knows that her statment is false, but makes it anyway, she believes that at least enough people in the US to vote her into office are stupid enough to believe her. And now it's clear that Obama's no different, except that while he's dropping bombs and invading countries he'd be happy to talk with people with whom HClinton would not talk. I'm not (yet) convinced by those who argue that the Dems and Reps are not different enough on foreign policy to make a difference, but the argument is getting harder to ignore. And it's also getting harder to ignore the claim that the Democrats really have no desire to stop any of the evil that's going on -- they want it to continue, gain votes by criticizing the Republicans for it, and take the White House and Congress in 2008 with no willingness at all to change US foreign policy in the direction of sanity. I guess that HClinton and Obama, at least, think that because they're so smart they'll be able to "manage" their wars better than the current group and so they can do more, not less, than is going on now. This is depressing. Not to say frightening.

Cyon: those weren't childish insults and I resent the characterization as such. But what can I expect from a bully. They are reasonable observations shared my many. This may be a game to you and Obama; but we are talking about human lives in the balance for cripes sakes! For Obama to say that he would go into Pakistan without their sovereign consent is the kind of garbage that I would expect from Bush. It's also very irresponsible. This would trigger a full scale civil war in Pakistan. Frankly, I am sick and tired of people like you Obama, Hillary and Biden who would bully anti-war Democrats and others. I beg your pardon, but I will not submit to you or Obama's view of American Empire. Live with it!

cyon -- regarding talking tough: I agree with your sentiment, but hasten to point out that Democrats need to talk tough about more than just fighting terrorism. That kind of talk just validates Bush's infantile world view, as well as the notion that we're fighting a global 'war on terror', which is just plain stupid (in the context of fighting that so-called war with military might).

I'd much rather see candidates talking tough in general -- about justice, the climate crisis, corporate welfare, white collar crime, White HOUSE crime, etc. etc. Once a candidate demonstrates his possession of a backbone, it's a lot easier for voters to believe that the candidate would be tough on terrorists too.

On the other hand, if all they talk tough about is Terror, and lack the intestinal fortitude to address other (more) serious problems with that same kind of direct forcefulness, then all the tough-on-terror talk just comes off as disingenuous.

Great... , Clinton is Bush Lite and Obamma is Bush Black

Obamma, sending troops into Pakistan without UNSC approval is the same as sending troops into Iraq without UNSC approval. Except the Pakisanis ACTUALLY DO have nukes.

duh!

Anybody person who buys into this crap deserves O'Bomber for a president. Rather than looking into the historic question of Palestine- which is the central question that gave rise, over decades, to the mess the west is in today, liberals now want to patter off after a fucking war in Pakistan. The "left" will begin to develop real mass the sooner it cuts itself off from such allies, people who demonstrate time and again they've learned nothing from history. And it is only a solid basis, a real understanding and opposition to the entirety of the western imperial project in the Middle East- including opposition to the current homeland for the Israelis AS IT IS CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD by imperial politicians and their apologists, that can build a real party of opposition to both the war in Iraq and the ongoing imperial project. Go your way, Obama supporters. We've no need for people who can't hang for the long haul.

Obama: Oooh! Oooh! See I can be a warmonger too! Now I am 'electable.'

Echoing what some others have said, if you want to immediately launch a broader Mideast War if not World War 3 do exactly as Obama has suggested.

Brilliant. If this is the best and brightest minds left in American politics we are truly toast.

I think Obama is just another politician like the rest but with a veneer of populism about him. No I wouldnt vote for him or any other joker the democ-rats put up. Having said that he does have a point in that Pakistan is the primary source of terrorism in the world today and we need to focus our attention on that. I do not endorse his position of sending troops in but if you are gonna have U.S. troops anywhere in the world today it needs to be on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It needs to be with the explicit or implicit permission of our friendly dicktator Musharraf.

Pakistan is a failed state. The Pakistani people do not support Musharraf or the religious fanatics 'the bearded ones', who won less than 15-20% of the vote in the last elections despite Musharraf propping them up with iron-clad scaffolding !!

What we need to do is support democracy in Pakistan, stop arming them to the teeth (F-16's if you can believe that!!), stop the billions in aid that doesnt remotely reach the Pakistani people, force Musharraf to go after the criminals in Waziristan and do everything possible to stabilize Pakistan. Im pretty sure this is what Obama meant although it comes across as warmongering.

Also the Pakistani army and its death-sister the ISI (intelligence) need to be dismantled if thats possible at all. After 60 years the Pakistani people need a breather and at least an attempt to make their State work, which has been near impossible because we choose to use Pakistan as our condom in that region to enhance our strategic objectives, with the help of a long line of pliant dicktators.

Be it Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton is really irrelevant as neither are equipped or willing to deal with the corporate takeover of our government. They both believe in empire as does John Edwards. They have all indicated this through the only meter of their beliefs-the senate vote!

For the first time I will be voting Green. At least they haven't actively screwed me over yet which the Democrats have since 1970.

I do believe there is hope for this crippled small "d" democracy but it is incumbent upon us all to relize that all the candidates are beholden to one corporate entity or another if not to multiple ones.

Personally, I had to decide on whether or not to waste my vote in the future and I have chosen not to do so. And so I will be voting my and the planets best interest rather than for a "democrat" who can win and obfuscate.

Killers come in maney colors why should Obama be differant.The few like Martin Luther King,Gandi,Mother Teresa,Jesus Christ have always been the ones to be killed,killers say those people get in the way of making war and must die.

Not to pile on, but lets also not forget that Obama is against impeachment. His reason has nothing to do with whether or not impeachment is a feasible strategy; rather, he's against impeachment because, "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority." ( http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php )

'nuf said.

"Okay, now that you have all, with the exception of gyptian, heaped invective on Obama, would one of you be willing to violate the left-liberal stereotype and instead criticizing, actually suggest a better approach to handling the regrouping of Al Quaeda in North Waziristan, given Musharaff's inaction? Or do you really all believe that doing nothing is a sound stragtegy? Are the republican hawks correct in saying that those on the left don't take the threat of terrorism seriously, and just hope it will go away if we are extra nice?"

Terrorist is a strategy by which an enemy is goaded by miniscule attacks on non-strategic targets to launch excessive military action; the goal in persuading an opponent to launch military action is to get him to destroy his own economic & political support reserves & resources. Therefore, the more one "does something", the more one achieves the goal of the terrorist; and the way to cripple the network to do is to refuse to perform the part which the terrorist has scripted for you.

Hey!

Latest news from Iraq.

"US lost 190,000 guns in Iraq"

Baghdad, Aug. 1: The US government cannot account for 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to an investigation carried out by the government accountability office.

According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 1,35000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces." The weapons disappeared from records between June 2004 and September 2005, as the military struggled to rebuild the disbanded Iraqi forces from scratch amid mounting attacks from Sunni insurgents and Shia militias.

Since 2004 the military "has not consistently collected supporting records confirming the dates the equipment was received, the quantities of equipment delivered, or the Iraqi units receiving the items," the report said.
"Since 2006 the command as placed greater emphasis on collecting the supporting documents. However, GAO's review of the January 2007 property books found continuing problems with missing and incomplete records." US commanders often accuse foreign powers such as Iran of supplying arms to illegal militias fighting in Iraq, but the report shows they cannot fully account for the hundreds thousands of weapons they brought in themselves. In July, Turkey raised concerns over reports that separatist Kurdish militants launching cross-border raids from northern Iraq had received US-supplied guns supposedly destined for Iraqi security forces. (AFP)

www.asianage.com

Hmmm . . . and who was ambassador to Iraq during the period the weapons went astray? John Honduran-Death-Squad Negroponte. What COULD he have been up to?

Agreed to Ron Murry!!!

This Obama guy is very dangerous. If he gets elected, black politics will get set back a generation.

Recall that during the debate of April 26, when goaded by the crafty Mike Gravel---who would make a far better president than Hillary and Obama combined---pressured Barack into saying the following:

"I'm not planning on nuking anyone right now."

Isn't that the most absurd statement made so far?

Another reason to be against Obama is his opposition to the single payer plan that solves the health insurance crisis.
He says we can't do it because it would put insurance executives out of a job. Pathetic!!!!!!

Speaking as a Black man, Black politics is already at least two generations in arear. Barak Obama is a corporate shill. There is no way the Daley machine based in Chicago would allow him to survive otherwise.

DEATH SQUAD JOHN STRIKES AGAIN!!! it was only a matter of time... the guy just can't help himself.

On another note,

Pakistan is a really tough call.. Realistically though, something needs to be done... if in fact we have the goal of helping out afghanistan and making it into a functioning country again, we've got to keep the pakistani's out of there.. Historically Pakistan basically considers Afghanistan to be their vassal state... they've controlled the political landscape there for the past 30 years almost... What we need to do is stop flushing billions of dollars down the toilet by giving aid to pakistan... If we're going to give them foreign aid we should at least make sure they're going to do something positive with the money... Want your money Pervez? close down your border... its not like he doesnt have the military to do it... don't even make them do anything else, just dont let anyone across the border and the situtation in Afghanistan would get much, much better.

Iraq has (had) a population of 24 million. Pakistan has 156 million. Since they have seen Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt that they would have a favourable opinion of the US. It seems logical that the country would rally against us.

Certainly no one could then blame Pakistan for a nuclear retaliation. They would need to fight tooth an nail - or else have their country under US occupation and destroyed like Iraq.

I wonder how an occupation of Pakistan might go. Obviously the US is good at killing, but Pakistan is a well armed country. Without using nukes it is hard to see how US would not be eventually evicted.

Of course if they do use the nukes (even baby ones) they will have not only demonstrated why every small country needs nukes, but have given the green light for their use in general warfare.

That is the last straw from Obama, for me. Like Hillary, I just cannot support.

If Bin Laden weren't the US's employee, he'd've been in the bag, or the ground, long since.

If one's goal is US security, the worst course of action would be to "do something about" the situation. And if one is really worried about Iran, then what better situation than to have an anti-Shiite group based in Pakistan?

The art of diplomacy is letting your friends take the brunt of your opponents' ire, rather than investing such absurd faith in one's own country to 'fix' things. No one is less qualified than the American government and the American electorate to go about the world trying to repair the disasters that we have created.

Gee, I have a novel idea for combatting terrorism: Maybe we should quit bombing the FUCK out of people, stealing their resources, backing up the corporations that treat them like slave labor and allow them to live in squalor while we live in opulence. Maybe, just FUCKING MAYBE, if we behaved like civilized human beings who were not living our lives in the complete service of MAMON, we would discover that no one WANTS to be a terrorist. That it isn't like growing up to be a fireman or a cowboy. That it is a wretched and desperate choice to give up your entire life to face the largest, most well-financed military in the world. That, maybe, this step is only taken when you have seen everyone you love murdered or maimed by a rain of indiscriminate bombs from the sky, or learned that the regime torturing your mother or father is only able to stand because of the enormous funding and military support they derive from the United States. Yeah, maybe there would be a few crazy people with an appetite for killing, but they would find themselves a lonely crew if the US would stop giving people so many REASONS to join up. Thanks, Obama, for lending your support to the recruitment of terrorists.

www.unknown-arts.org/politics

Dichterfreund August 1st, 2007 5:43 pm

"Terrorism - The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." - FBI

Therefore bombing of citizens in Iraq or in Afghanistan is terrorism even if committed using hi-tech remotely guided planes or missiles, and it is terrorism even if the media refuses to bear witness. I therefore pronounce the USA the most guilty. Further, I offer the controversial opinion it could be justified in defending your native soil, making the Iraqis the least guilty.

Statements that interchanges the word Taliban with Terrorist or the word Taliban with Al Quaeda, making out that these are one and the same deserves not to be taken seriously. Taliban militants control much of Waziristan, a rocky, mountainous area twice the size of Long Island along the Pakistani border. Referring to them as Al Quaeda, or just terrorists is a propaganda tactic used by our media, and I know that you dont mean to stoop to their level.

I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions to the media's selective reporting of Obama's speech. I've read the entire transcript, and I find it a remarkable statement of Obama's faith in and reliance on political and economic diplomacy, not a hawkish Bush-lite quality. The line that has everyone so twisted up is in fact a tiny part of the speech, and is in any case an extremely limited statement of his willingness to take any open shot at Bin Laden that presents itself in Waziristan, without having to go through Musharraf for permission. This is an uncontroversial opinion: every candidate shares it. Please, before you write any more or respond to me, take the time to read the entire speech. I think you will come away with a great appreciation of Obama's fresh foreign policy perspective. But make up your own mind: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

Braithwa842,

Imperial wars are far greater crimes than terrorist acts. MSM discourse attempts to make terrorist acts appear to be sufficient justification for imperial wars, which of course are never called imperial wars, but wars of liberation and defense etc.

I only use the word 'terrorist' in the context of a given discussion; I should use the inverted commas to indicate that I intend only characterize ACTIONS as terrorist, never groups.

"he line that has everyone so twisted up is in fact a tiny part of the speech, and is in any case an extremely limited statement of his willingness to take any open shot at Bin Laden that presents itself in Waziristan, without having to go through Musharraf for permission. This is an uncontroversial opinion: every candidate shares it."

I controvert it; but them I'm not a candidate.

No one has a right to "take shots" at people in non-belligerent countries. The fact that it's regarded as an "uncontroversial" opinion shows how degraded the political discourse now is.

Chomsky sez: "To stop terrorists, stop being one".