Obama Proves Hillary Right! Let's Invade Pakistan!

UPDATED!

Hillary Clinton said that Barack Obama was naive on foreign policy. And obviously out to prove her point for her, he suggests that we might unilaterally invade Pakistan.

Pakistan is an ally. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

That's the end of Obama's rookie campaign. Sure, there will be backpedalling big time, but not fast enough. He's done.

ETC: Pale Ride says rightly in the comments, "Don't forget Edwards was talkin' tough about Saudia Arabia last week. So let's see, some Democrats want to piss off the few islamic allies we have, yet open dialog with those who hate us (Iran, North Korea, etc). To quote the wise and all knowing Wile E. Coyote, 'I'm such a genius!'"

MORE ETC: And then this thoughtful exchange

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "-involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

This guy is such a wet-behind-the-ears rookie. I don't think Hillary needs to do much more campaigning. She'll be the one left standing at this rate for the Democrats.

My thoughts about the use of nuclear weapons: of course there are circumstances that warrant the use of a nuclear weapon - even in the case of civilians. I'll give one:

• AQ unleashes a lethal biological weapon that poisons a town with a highly contagious pathogen. The choice is either to nuke the place or to allow it to spread planet-wide.

No one who aims to be president should take our assets off the table - in any circumstance.

Tags: politics | terrorism
by Brett Rogers, 8/1/2007 10:34:06 AM
Permalink

I thought the same not long ago when saying sex education for kindergarten students "was the right thing to do." Let's see how much the main stream media protects him and allows him to spin his way out of this.

For those of us with logical brains destabilizing a nuclear ally with an already shaky goverenment who has a touchy relationship with india (another nuclear ally) who our economy has become ever more entwined with would be just "brilliant."

I agree though, he should be done, I just don't think the media will allow it.

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/1/2007 11:06:15 AM

I just read more on this over on Michelle Malkin's website. They've proclaimed the Village People's "Macho Man" as Obama's theme song. Hilarious.

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/1/2007 11:15:08 AM

My God, the drama! Barack's not really my candidate, so I don't give a damn if he cuts his own throat, but I don't think this will do it. The man is seriously loved by the media, and we all know that's what wins elections. I do, however, feel you guys read that article as way more dramatic than it was, in my opinion. Seems to me that if he's willing to talk to Cuba, he's probably going to negotiate with Pakistan before sending any troops in...not 'unilaterally invade'. And ally or no, he does kind of have a point about knowing terrorists are there and in Afghanistan. *Bella winces as she waits to be showered with sarcasm* He's just talking tough because he's been taken to task. That's what happens during elections. There are many stupid things to be said and over reacted to in the coming months by all the candidates.

Funny how we all want someone who isn't jaded by Washington Politics, but then when somebody speaks his ideas that go against our idea of politics, he's branded 'naive'. I speak generally, I'm not defending him. I just find it interesting.

And, OT but I can't resist (and PR started it ;-P) , don't be such a prude, PR. It's just sex education. Five year olds have a right to the power that knowledge provides.

Posted by Bella, 8/1/2007 11:56:45 AM

lmao - that's hillaryous about Macho Man...

You raise a good point about the media, but I think the guffaws on this one will be too loud to ignore. Suggesting that he might unilaterally send troops into an ally nation that has nuclear weapons - and you're right about India - lacks any savvy at all.

Hillary loves this day.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 8/1/2007 11:59:19 AM

Bella, what sex ed does a five-year-old require? My experience with my kids at that age is that their knowledge of what makes a boy a boy and what makes a girl a girl is about the depth of it. And it's best taught at the time of their own questions - age varies depending on the kid.

Beyond that, what power do you grant them with further knowledge?

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 8/1/2007 12:16:00 PM

The power not to be abused. The power of knowing their own bodies. The knowledge that it isn't 'dirty'. The value of it and themselves. Respect for it and themselves. I see women everyday who hated their bodies from the time they were just that age, and were sexualized from the time they were small as well. Media is very powerful, and I'd rather have them get the facts about sex from people they can trust (hopefully their teachers are to be trusted) than believe the stuff they see on TV (which they do) or in movies. Yes, it would be nice if that happened at home, but the fact is, it doesn't always. I'd even say, mostly it doesn't. It boggles me sometimes how freaked out people get about sex education. No, it's not comfortable, and yes, sex is a private thing in action, but the fact is, it's out there, everybody does it, and sadly sometimes it's used to hurt. Knowledge gives kids the ability to say 'no'.

And the age of curiousity does depend on the kid. The questions they are willing and comfortable enough to ask depend on the parent or trusted adult in their life.

Nobody is saying that five year olds need all the steamy details. What makes boys boys and girls girls is sex education. Respect for the amazing things that your body does to make babies is good for them to know. Boundaries are good to know. The earlier they view it as a natural body thing, the less likely they are to buy the idea that the TV and movie people are the norm and the more likely they are to know that they are in control of what happens to them.

Okay...that turned into a sermon. :-) Sorry. It's something I feel strongly about. Seriously Brett, I see people everyday with a stunning lack of knowledge about the value of their bodies and what we would consider 'basic' knowledge about sexual function (both emotional and physical) and it breaks my heart. And it all starts when they are very very young.

Posted by Bella, 8/1/2007 1:06:51 PM

Don't forget Edwards was talkin' tough about Saudia Arabia last week. So let's see, some Democrats want to piss off the few islamic allies we have, yet open dialog with those who hate us (Iran, North Korea, etc). To quote the wise and all knowing Wile E. Coyote, "I'm such a genius!" It is a very good time for Hillary.

This is just too funny. I think that is the first time I have ever been told I'm being a prude Bella. Now, now I have the "if you touch it more than once you'll go blind speech" all ready for my son. :P Sorry I couldn't resist. Getting serious now I am for age appropriate education here, starting around grade 6 or 7. I can't imagine what a child needs to know before then. Their minds and bodies are not ready before then and I see no benefit in pushing the envelope there. Mitt Romney said it well. Let 5 year olds be 5 year olds.

Damn the village people. Time to be a "Macho, macho man. I've got to be, a macho man!" Arrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/1/2007 1:24:39 PM

Bella, most kids don't suffer the indignity that those you know have. I get your protective sense, but you're overreaching.

The problem with a lot of school is that kids aren't on the same page. You get those more advanced who can read at a second-grade level in Kindergarten, and then you get those who can't tie their shoes in Kindergarten or recognize the letter "K."

Sex ed in school - especially at the age of five - is something that would be inappropriate for too many who aren't emotionally ready for that. To them at that age, it's just kids and parts and big deal - let's play on the playground!

My kids wouldn't have been ready for that. They understood the difference between boys and girls, but that's all that mattered to them at the age. They started asking questions about how babies come to be at around 7 years old. And they asked me because they trust me and know me and they have a sense of privacy about their bodies because as a parent, I taught them that. They should have a sense of privacy about their bodies. They feel safe around me with it because I'm Dad.

Their bodies aren't for public discussion at the age of five and yet Obama's proposing that we're gonna have teachers - whom kids don't trust like they do us parents - having those discussions in the open with them? Not no but hell no. I'd pull my kid out of school that week.

When they're in middle school, they're more mature and they can absorb that much better. I have no problem with that. But at five? For most kids, it's not even on their radar. It's irresponsible to push them into it when they're not emotionally ready for it in a large group setting.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 8/1/2007 1:31:11 PM

As always, we are all entitled to our opinion. I think we would be surprised at the sheer numbers of kids that have known the indignity that those I work with have. Mine just don't have the money for therapists or the coping skills to get over it and end up in tough places for many reasons.

"They started asking questions about how babies come to be at around 7 years old. And they asked me because they trust me and know me and they have a sense of privacy about their bodies because as a parent, I taught them that. They should have a sense of privacy about their bodies. They feel safe around me with it because I'm Dad."

You say they started asking questions, but unless you were asking them questions, or even if they had questions, I'm not sure you can say they weren't ready for the information. I'm glad they asked, but how many kids have been fed so much crap that they wouldn't ask? And not everybody has a parent that they are comfortable enough with to ask. I see nothing wrong with public discussion with a kid in a safe educational environment at 5 or 6. (the safe educational environment is probably the more difficult issue. What is that? How do you build it?) If the kid doesn't care, fine. But if the kid does, it's important the questions get addressed. I guess I'd rather teach a kid something he doesn't really care about at that point than risk missing a kid who is genuinely curious and concerned. It's not like you are teaching him to build a bomb. You're teaching him stuff that is perfectly natural, legal, happens to everybody and that he's going to figure out on his own anyway. And correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but your boy is working earlier than grade 6 or 7. :-)

But that's just me and my opinion. Is anybody else but me mildly amused that this whole thread will fall under the tags 'politics' and 'terrorism'? :-)

Posted by Bella, 8/1/2007 1:58:58 PM

I think the line between health and sex ed is being blurred here. I have no problem talking about the human body with children at any age. My son has been asking questions for a long time and will continue to do so. Sex ed, reproduction, yes I would not push that on them before they are emotionally and/or physically ready.

I think a lot of this comes down to parenting or the lack of it. Issues get passed on by the parent and they end up falling to the educational system to be dealt with. Unfortunately too many parents have about as much common sense as say, a presidential candidate posturing about invaliding one of the few islamic allies we have. Oh well, saying "it is the right thing to do" makes for a good clip on the evening news.

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/1/2007 2:30:24 PM

Pale Rider: "Unfortunately too many parents have about as much common sense as say, a presidential candidate posturing about invaliding one of the few islamic allies we have."

LMAO. Amen brother.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 8/1/2007 2:41:30 PM

Wow, this just gets better and better for Hillary. He really is clueless. I don't think he has the stones to drop one period. A first litmus test for a president is "would you hesitate to drop a nuclear weapon if warranted?" If an absolute no is given you are out of the running as commander in chief. It won't be long before Iran has one (we don't have the stones to drop the necessary weapons to stop them), so do you think rogue governments like them will be more likely to hit us or an ally if they know our president won't retaliate?

I never thought of having to release one for a biological reason as you stated (and I've read a lot of Tom Clancy). I'm not too hot on nukes but if the situation calls for it it has to be done. Otherwise, I've fond of some of the convential weapons we have such as MOAB. We should have used it a few times already against certain middle east targets (including Iran).

I think his advisors should put one of those electronic collars on him. When he start sounding like a moonbat he vets a few volts. :)

Posted by Pale Rider, 8/2/2007 3:03:54 PM