You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
The Obama Empire Strikes Back
2008-05-17
Sen. Barack Obama pushed back Friday against President Bush's implicit criticism of his approach to foreign policy, condemning his administration for not capturing Osama bin Laden and blaming its Iraq war policy for strengthening and emboldening Iran. An animated Obama, cheered on by a crowd gathered on the floor of a livestock arena, said he would be delighted if the presidential race turned into a conversation about which party is better suited to guide the nation's foreign policy.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have anytime, anyplace, and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," the Democratic front-runner said.

After weeks of discussion about how to address rising gasoline prices and the nation's souring economy, the campaign resumed its focus on the Iraq war and the fragile state of the Middle East. Obama's speech triggered a day-long foreign policy exchange between him and McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's challenger for the Democratic nomination, was left largely on the sidelines.
Posted by:Bobby

#28  He said McCain will "need to answer" for a strengthened al-Qaeda leadership, killing bunnies, illegal time travel, Islam and gravity.

Obamamma can't think on his feet let alone tell the truth. McCain is going to crush this wanker.
Posted by: Icerigger   2008-05-17 21:20  

#27  damn
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 21:08  

#26  Personal opinion? The man is an anti-Israel antisemite, because that's the fashionable view in the circles in which he travels, and he'll say whatever makes those around him accept him. He is savvy enough politically to realize, however, that the majority of American voters are not fashionable, and so will not say that in public -- unless he's stressed or tired, as has been noted.

Frank dear, I think Nimble Spemble's comment was directed at g(r)omgoru, not you.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-05-17 21:02  

#25  really? and if the C-In-C declared all intelligence currently shared with Israel to be transferred to the DOS bureaucracy "love list", that wouldn't be an immediate consequence to Americans? What immediate check is there on that power? A congressional R.O.?

I think I understand fine, thank you
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 20:48  

#24  And you, like most of the world, don't understand the checks on that power. We survived Roosevelt, we survived Carter, we'll survive Hussein.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-05-17 20:09  

#23  know, not now....preview is my friend
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 20:07  

#22  I am, and I now. The impacts aren't as potentially instantaneous, however
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 20:07  

#21  and should my life and liberty depend on it, as your's does? I'd be a pessimist.

You should be a pessimist on your own account. IMO, you Americans don't realise how much power the office of the POTUS has in the hands of somebody who doesn't share your basic worldview.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-17 19:49  

#20  I'm just saying I think he's too slick to be that explicit.

He might, if tired or no teleprompter is available
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 19:30  

#19  Did I clear that up at all?
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 19:29  

#18  as far as the speech should be fairly interpreted? Yes. As far as what's in his heart? I have serious doubts, and should my life and liberty depend on it, as your's does? I'd be a pessimist. I don't think he'd say :"Israel is the sore". I can't say that about him believing it, based on what we've seen so far of his brief public vetting. 'What I know' is troubling.
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 19:28  

#17  You really believe this, Mr G?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-17 19:23  

#16  crap.. I meant: "I DON'T think that particular comment referred ONLY to Israel."

Wow! That didn't change the meaning one bit, did it? What can I say? I'm also watching the NASCAR All-star race pre-race show. Can't handle that and typing my comment clearly? I'm a moron
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 19:22  

#15  g - I dislike Obama as much as anybody, and I don't think he's a friend or dependable ally to Jews and Israel. I also hate his ties to Wright/Hamas. That said, I think that particular comment referred ONLY to Israel. I read it as saying the 'Israel/Paleo conflict' was a "constant sore". Just my 2 cents. YMMV

Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 19:18  

#14  I meant to write "meet", but actually...
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-17 19:15  

#13  I don't see that all the fuss is about---of course the guy who says that Israel "is a constant sore", wants to meat the guy who says that Israel "is a stinking corpse".
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-17 19:14  

#12  And who doesn't seem to function well under stress.

well, thank God that's not a requirement for the Presidency
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 16:07  

#11  #2 : Republican presidents, P2K. Dems only have shades of greatness...
Posted by: Bobby   2008-05-17 14:59  

#10  The guy couldn't debate a smart Hill intern on foreign policy. He's a lightweight with bad instincts and very dubious analytical skills.

And who doesn't seem to function well under stress.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-05-17 14:36  

#9  How long will the press go on covering for this emptysuit messiah?

Until he proves detrimental to their liberal lies.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-05-17 12:35  

#8  Obamas Empire? You mean the Leftist Dominant Media (AKA "MAM" excpt they really arent mainstream anymore)?

How long will the press go on covering for this emptysuit messiah?
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-05-17 11:46  

#7  That this twink can even say such ridiculous things without inviting instant, uh, ridicule - is another reminder of what a debased and silly "public square" we have when it comes to foreign policy.

"Strengthened" Iran? Hmmm. Prior to 2003, they were throwing their weight around with impunity - not just in Lebanon and Gaza, but directly against us (Khobar Towers, etc.). Now?

Let's see.

US forces and intel agencies on two borders, with direct access to Iran via assets recruited from the literally millions of border-crossing pilgrims and others, as well as via illegals of US or other nationality. Check.

US forces in direct contact with Iranian forces and proxies, with the concomitant benefits that brings from captured operatives, intercepted materials and commo, and exposure to TTPs. Check.

US conventional force bases and observation positions on or near the border. Check.

Demonstration of US will and capacity by reaching in and snuffing out what had historically been the strongest and most aggressive of the Arab rejectionist states. Check.

Yep, son, that there's some list of failures. And of course this leaves aside the slaughter of Sunni jihadis that Iraq has seen - all of which contributes to the cause against Iran, which of course is logically banking heavily on all forms of anti-US and anti-western extremism to help them achieve their goals (shhh, don't let the morons in Langley hear, they'll get confused).

And WTF with "strengthened AQ leadership"? So strong they're changing their rationales and themes faster than a Hamas terrorist scrambling for the basement when he hears an Israeli chopper hovering nearby?

Of course, there IS that long list of successful major terror operations against the US homeland and interests abroad that AQ has pulled off since 2001. Wait ....

Oh, please, let Psycho, er, Maverick take up this child on his reckless challenge. The guy couldn't debate a smart Hill intern on foreign policy. He's a lightweight with bad instincts and very dubious analytical skills.
Posted by: Verlaine   2008-05-17 11:29  

#6  McCain has been training for it by spending all his time on the bus with reporters who are happy to beat him up.
?
The back of the bus is McCains base.
You mean beat up on BO?

Posted by: George Smiley   2008-05-17 11:23  

#5  The accusation fits like a favorite loafer, eh, Barry?
Posted by: eLarson   2008-05-17 11:18  

#4  remind Barack that there's no teleprompter at debates.
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-17 09:08  

#3  Big mistake by Hussein. He's revealed how thin his skin is about this issue, and with very little provocation. He'd better watch out for the debate he wants so much. McCain has been training for it by spending all his time on the bus with reporters who are happy to beat him up. Hussein is surrounded by sycophants. He'll lose it when he gets frustrated that he can't get McCain to lose it. Then McCain will slip in a zinger and he'll explode. Game, set, match.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-05-17 08:54  

#2  Obama citing Nixon? The worst president until George Bush?

You missed Carter in that timeline?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-05-17 08:50  

#1  "Obama called it "disingenuous" to assert that he was not the clear target of the president's comments"

Get over yourself - the world does not revolve around YOU. Particularly President Bush's world.

Fool.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-05-17 08:46  

00:00