[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop
the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies,"
she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have
all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack
Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when
he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he
would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval
from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act,
we will," Obama said. At the time, McCain called Obama's comments
"naive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

As an aside:

"President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first
time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground
assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government, according to senior American officials."

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration
after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about
how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s
tribal areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/wa...policy.html?hp

So, 2pid, you're curiously silent on this point. It seems that Obama
was quite a visionary. That's the mark of a great leader.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 12, 12:08*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:07*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop
the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies,"
she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have
all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack
Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when
he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he
would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval
from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act,
we will," Obama said. At the time, McCain called Obama's comments
"naive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/09/11/AR200...

As an aside:

"President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first
time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground
assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government, according to senior American officials."

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration
after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about
how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s
tribal areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/wa...policy.html?hp

So, 2pid, you're curiously silent on this point. It seems that Obama
was quite a visionary. That's the mark of a great leader.

Interesting role reversal. *Obama usually preaches diplomacy.
Bush is touted as the gunslinger.

He's more usually touted as an idiot. If wee hadn't invaded Iraq and
diverted our eye from the ball in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan right,
this probably wouldn't be an issue now.

Obama campaigns on an invasion platform.

Lie.

Bush spends 7 years on diplomacy and finally
invades.
Is this that dimes worth of difference I keep heaing about?

I think there's a whole dollar's worth of difference between McCain
and Obama. What do you think of the two-faced youtube videos of
McCain? McCain seems easily confused. He's a lot like bushie in that
regard.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 12, 1:33*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:08*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 9:07*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop
the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies,"
she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have
all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack
Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when
he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he
would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval
from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act,
we will," Obama said. At the time, McCain called Obama's comments
"naive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/09/11/AR200...

As an aside:

"President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first
time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground
assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government, according to senior American officials."

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration
after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about
how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s
tribal areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/wa...policy.html?hp

So, 2pid, you're curiously silent on this point. It seems that Obama
was quite a visionary. That's the mark of a great leader.

Interesting role reversal. *Obama usually preaches diplomacy.
Bush is touted as the gunslinger.

He's more usually touted as an idiot. If wee hadn't invaded Iraq and
diverted our eye from the ball in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan right,
this probably wouldn't be an issue now.

*That's not particularly useful in deciding who should be the next
president unless you swallow dem talking points.

Or look at McCain as bushie III, which he certainly looks like. Palin
is not the pick of someone who is touting himself to be the "agent of
change".

Obama campaigns on an invasion platform.

Lie.

*How many times does he have to say he'll go into
Pakistan without their OK?

To make it a "platform"? More than once.

Bush spends 7 years on diplomacy and finally
invades.
Is this that dimes worth of difference I keep heaing about?

I think there's a whole dollar's worth of difference between McCain
and Obama.

*But you fail to address the point and seek to obfuscate.

LoL. Right.

What do you think of the two-faced youtube videos of
McCain? McCain seems easily confused.

That's make two things he has in common with you.

I have never said "I was against tax cuts before I was for them". And
confusion is not something people of normal intelligence accuse me of,
2pid. So I'll give *you* a pass. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 12, 1:50*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 11:36*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:33*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 10:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:08*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 9:07*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop
the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies,"
she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have
all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack
Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when
he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he
would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval
from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act,
we will," Obama said. At the time, McCain called Obama's comments
"naive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/09/11/AR200...

As an aside:

"President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first
time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground
assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government, according to senior American officials."

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration
after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about
how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s
tribal areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/wa...policy.html?hp

So, 2pid, you're curiously silent on this point. It seems that Obama
was quite a visionary. That's the mark of a great leader.

Interesting role reversal. *Obama usually preaches diplomacy.
Bush is touted as the gunslinger.

He's more usually touted as an idiot. If wee hadn't invaded Iraq and
diverted our eye from the ball in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan right,
this probably wouldn't be an issue now.

*That's not particularly useful in deciding who should be the next
president unless you swallow dem talking points.

Or look at McCain as bushie III, which he certainly looks like.

Only to those who believe party talking points, in which
case, you really have no need to think at all.

He hired Rove's protoge after saying he was against that sort of
thing. He was opposed to the tax cuts. Now he's for them. About the
only thing he's been consistent on is Iraq.

The party will think for you.

It appears so. That's why McCain picked Palin over Ridge or Lieberman.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 12, 11:33*am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:08*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 9:07*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop
the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies,"
she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have
all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack
Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when
he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he
would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval
from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act,
we will," Obama said. At the time, McCain called Obama's comments
"naive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/09/11/AR200...

As an aside:

"President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first
time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground
assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government, according to senior American officials."

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration
after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about
how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s
tribal areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/wa...policy.html?hp

So, 2pid, you're curiously silent on this point. It seems that Obama
was quite a visionary. That's the mark of a great leader.

Interesting role reversal. *Obama usually preaches diplomacy.
Bush is touted as the gunslinger.

He's more usually touted as an idiot. If wee hadn't invaded Iraq and
diverted our eye from the ball in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan right,
this probably wouldn't be an issue now.

*That's not particularly useful in deciding who should be the next
president unless you swallow dem talking points.

"Dem talking points" has as little to do with this election as "hockey
mom."

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 12, 8:12*pm, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 12, 11:33*am, ScottW wrote:





On Sep 12, 10:38*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:08*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 12, 9:07*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop
the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies,"
she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have
all options out there on the table."

That response put her in line with a view expressed by Sen. Barack
Obama, now the Democratic presidential nominee, in August 2007, when
he stirred controversy by saying that if he were elected president, he
would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval
from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence
about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act,
we will," Obama said. At the time, McCain called Obama's comments
"naive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/09/11/AR200...

As an aside:

"President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first
time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground
assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government, according to senior American officials."

"The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration
after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about
how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s
tribal areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/wa...policy.html?hp

So, 2pid, you're curiously silent on this point. It seems that Obama
was quite a visionary. That's the mark of a great leader.

Interesting role reversal. *Obama usually preaches diplomacy.
Bush is touted as the gunslinger.

He's more usually touted as an idiot. If wee hadn't invaded Iraq and
diverted our eye from the ball in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan right,
this probably wouldn't be an issue now.

*That's not particularly useful in deciding who should be the next
president unless you swallow dem talking points.

"Dem talking points" has as little to do with this election as "hockey
mom."

2pid swallows. That much is clearly obvious. LoL.