Obama- Under-equiped Troops
As many of you know (and I use the term 'many' loosely), I have been working in the desert of Southern California for the last seven months, and have been more or less isolated from current news. So, with that being said, I missed this story completely.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A missile from a U.S. Predator drone struck a suspected terrorist safehouse in Pakistan and killed a top Al Qaeda commander believed responsible for a brazen bomb attack during a visit last year by Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Thursday.
Last evening (and even now), while in a fierce debate with moonbats attacking Amy Proctor, this link was provided. The debate was centered around Barack Obama's recent comments of ill-equiped and undermanned military units, and as usual there were many non-sequiturs in the thread. Senator McCain was hammered by one guano maker for criticizing Obama's comments from last year saying that Obama wanted to bomb Pakistan.
My defense of McCain was taken as non support of the Bush Administration in light of the recent attack on Al Qaida in Northern Pakistan. Here is my position:
It occurred to me this morning that if I were the leader of a small country whose government was weak, had a large portion of my constituency supporting seventh century politics, had known terrorists occupying land within my borders, had a weak army, and was relying on financial and arms support from a country whom I’d consider a friend, that said terrorists were fighting against, I would most likely make a strong public statement condemning the actions of my friend who crossed my border and attacked said terrorists to calm the angst of my people. But it isn’t a far stretch to imagine alliances, agreements and even the distribution of exact locations of those terrorists to my friend, nor is it a stretch to imagine that I would privately thank my friend for helping me with a problem that I was unable to solve with my politically divided country and weak army.
This is pure speculation of course, but knowing that Pakistan is well suited to be the country I described, and the United States having the ability to assist with Pakistan’s problems, I think it is a reasonable explanation for our recent actions. I believe however, Mr. Obama’s comments indicate he did not take this scenario into account, and was making an emotional response to an accusation of inadequacy and inexperience of foreign affairs.
Mr. Obama’s recent comments regarding ill-equipped and undermanned military are simply another example of him making emotionally charged statements to draw attention away from his own inexperience as a leader. In other words, he is attempting to make himself look better by making his opponent look worse. Taking that thought to the next level, we see the democratic argument following the same course of thought; make our policies and ideas look better by making the republican president look worse.
I believe that thought process is learned in the fourth grade, and then corrected by the seventh grade; for most…
The biggest (and only) argument I have heard in support of Barack Obama for President is "he is inspring"... the problem is there is no substance or experience in his ability to lead which brings me to another observation: Neither does Hillary have any substance or experience in leadership, which sadly brings me to the conclusion that McCain is the only other choice who does have a history of leadership.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A missile from a U.S. Predator drone struck a suspected terrorist safehouse in Pakistan and killed a top Al Qaeda commander believed responsible for a brazen bomb attack during a visit last year by Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Thursday.
Last evening (and even now), while in a fierce debate with moonbats attacking Amy Proctor, this link was provided. The debate was centered around Barack Obama's recent comments of ill-equiped and undermanned military units, and as usual there were many non-sequiturs in the thread. Senator McCain was hammered by one guano maker for criticizing Obama's comments from last year saying that Obama wanted to bomb Pakistan.
My defense of McCain was taken as non support of the Bush Administration in light of the recent attack on Al Qaida in Northern Pakistan. Here is my position:
It occurred to me this morning that if I were the leader of a small country whose government was weak, had a large portion of my constituency supporting seventh century politics, had known terrorists occupying land within my borders, had a weak army, and was relying on financial and arms support from a country whom I’d consider a friend, that said terrorists were fighting against, I would most likely make a strong public statement condemning the actions of my friend who crossed my border and attacked said terrorists to calm the angst of my people. But it isn’t a far stretch to imagine alliances, agreements and even the distribution of exact locations of those terrorists to my friend, nor is it a stretch to imagine that I would privately thank my friend for helping me with a problem that I was unable to solve with my politically divided country and weak army.
This is pure speculation of course, but knowing that Pakistan is well suited to be the country I described, and the United States having the ability to assist with Pakistan’s problems, I think it is a reasonable explanation for our recent actions. I believe however, Mr. Obama’s comments indicate he did not take this scenario into account, and was making an emotional response to an accusation of inadequacy and inexperience of foreign affairs.
Mr. Obama’s recent comments regarding ill-equipped and undermanned military are simply another example of him making emotionally charged statements to draw attention away from his own inexperience as a leader. In other words, he is attempting to make himself look better by making his opponent look worse. Taking that thought to the next level, we see the democratic argument following the same course of thought; make our policies and ideas look better by making the republican president look worse.
I believe that thought process is learned in the fourth grade, and then corrected by the seventh grade; for most…
The biggest (and only) argument I have heard in support of Barack Obama for President is "he is inspring"... the problem is there is no substance or experience in his ability to lead which brings me to another observation: Neither does Hillary have any substance or experience in leadership, which sadly brings me to the conclusion that McCain is the only other choice who does have a history of leadership.
posted by Gary | 8:25 AM
<< Home