Obama's comments on Afghanistan draw sharp rebuke from Romney campaign - Political Forum

superdude17* · 08-14-2007, 05:06 PM

Source: AP

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama came under fire Tuesday for saying that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." The junior senator from Illinois made the comment Monday at a campaign stop in Nashua, New Hampshire.

"We've got to get the job done there," he said of Afghanistan. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

The comment drew a rebuke Tuesday from the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"That is a very troubling remark on so many levels," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. "Most importantly, it's emblematic of Senator Obama's lack of experience for the job of commander-in-chief. But it's also an entirely inaccurate condemnation of the efforts of the men and women of the United States military who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

A spokesman for Obama, who will speak at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Missouri next week, did not immediately respond to Madden's criticism.

The flap comes three weeks after Obama promised that if elected president, he would meet without pre-conditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. That pledge was called "irresponsible and frankly naive" by rival Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Eight days later, eager to rebut Clinton's charge, Obama said that as president, he might send U.S. troops into Pakistan to fight terrorists not targeted by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," he vowed.

Critics called this overly hawkish, prompting Obama to modulate again the next day by ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," he told the AP before pausing.

"Involving civilians," he added. "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

The gaffe was criticized by Clinton, who said: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Clinton has been criticized for a statement about Iran last year in which she said "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table."

On Tuesday, Clinton's campaign declined to comment on Obama's remark about U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Well, Obama definitely won’t be the Veep candidate now for any serious Dem. candidate.

Obama doesn’t know (or think) crap about foreign affairs, terrorism, etc... He reflexively quotes from his deep-seated left-wing biases. Time for someone in his campaign to tell him to stop, step back, and think clearly how he should reply (in away that doesn’t offend most Americans)

Judge Dredd · 08-14-2007, 06:14 PM

The War is irrelevant. Eight friggin years and Iraq's still no better then the outskirts of Mega-City One.

Infact if I knew more about your primitive history, I'd concur that Iraq WAS outside territory of Mega-City One!

The War is just a blackhole, sucking in our hard-earned money. It's great that Bush wanted to liberate Iraquis but y'know what? NOT ON MY TAX DOLLAR!

Ron Paul signed a bill that would allow normal citizens to pursue Osama Bin Laden, infact I was offerd a chance to bountyhunt with a couple of sweaty rednecks. I might've gone, but I'd rather not get shot right now.. and frankly, I don't think Osama is all that big of a threat..

If you want to spread justice abroad, do it on your own dime and time.

Leave American government in America!

Republicans need to stop being such sissies and vote for someone based on what's really important.

Abortion
Abstinance
Taxes
Federal Spending
Upholding the Constitution

everything else is just pork. And in the future we discoverd that the atkins diet would turn you into a mutant.

Mutants are not allowed in Mega-City One!!!

Scribbler1 · 08-14-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Dredd

Ron Paul signed a bill that would allow normal citizens to pursue Osama Bin Laden, infact I was offerd a chance to bountyhunt with a couple of sweaty rednecks. I might've gone, but I'd rather not get shot right now.. and frankly, I don't think Osama is all that big of a threat..

Neither did Bush think OBL was much of a threat.

And I need a little clarification on the rest of your statement. Just what was it that Ron Paul signed? He's a Congressman, and as such he can VOTE on a bill but he can't sign one into law.
In fact, I don't think you NEED a law to allow you to go after OBL, or anyone else with a bounty on his head, which we put on shortly after 9/11.

Quote:

If you want to spread justice abroad, do it on your own dime and time.

I thought that WAS what we were doing, much to the consternation of the rest of the world.

Quote:

Leave American government in America!

What a cheesy slogan!

BANDERA · 08-14-2007, 07:37 PM

Did that "quote" of Obama's appear in any serious independent and an actual news media ?

superdude17* · 08-14-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

Neither did Bush think OBL was much of a threat.

And I need a little clarification on the rest of your statement. Just what was it that Ron Paul signed? He's a Congressman, and as such he can VOTE on a bill but he can't sign one into law.
In fact, I don't think you NEED a law to allow you to go after OBL, or anyone else with a bounty on his head, which we put on shortly after 9/11.

I thought that WAS what we were doing, much to the consternation of the rest of the world.

What a cheesy slogan!

I can't believe I am actually agreeing with some of your ranter here. Here here. Ron Paul voted for the September 14, 2001 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force." So, I don't see where all of the Paulistas are getting this idea that he is so against war and the idea of not spending money on war.

emptypepsi · 08-14-2007, 09:12 PM

"All of the Paulistas are getting this idea"...yeah, all one of them are.

Paul voted in favor of H.J. Res. 64 of the 107th Congress on September 14, 2001, that says, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

He justified his vote by saying when he voted for it, he voted for "the authority to go after al-Qaeda" and that he wasn't under the impression that the U.S. was going to take over Afghanistan and "nation build".

However, to be fair to both sides, the resolution did single out 'Nations'. Paul must have known to a degree that the nation would be invaded, but then I guess that is what one gets in hoping Bush would eventually keep his sights on Bin Laden rather than nation-building there and in Iraq.

Besides, Paul is not reputed as the "Anti-Afghan War Candidate", it's more like "Anti-Iraq war Candidate". But, I won't split hairs any more than that here.

Judge Dredd · 08-14-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdude17*

I can't believe I am actually agreeing with some of your ranter here. Here here. Ron Paul voted for the September 14, 2001 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force." So, I don't see where all of the Paulistas are getting this idea that he is so against war and the idea of not spending money on war.

Being apart of Aphganastain's war and the Iraq war are two completely differant things.

I'm against both, but Ron Paul was saying we need to hunt the radical Islamists that blewup the world trade center, not topple an evil dictator that had nothing to do with anything.

The former is a war based on the emotions of angery Americans who fealt violated and raped.

The latter is a war based on the special interest's of this administration.

SamInTheSouth · 08-14-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Dredd

Republicans need to stop being such sissies and vote for someone based on what's really important.

Abortion
Abstinance
Taxes
Federal Spending
Upholding the Constitution

Abstinence is what's really important?

SamInTheSouth · 08-14-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BANDERA

Did that "quote" of Obama's appear in any serious independent and an actual news media ?

The Associated Press was an actual news media the last time I checked, but if it will make you feel better, you can see him saying it for yourself.

Video

BANDERA · 08-14-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

The Associated Press was an actual news media the last time I checked, but if it will make you feel better, you can see him saying it for yourself.

Video

I never actuall saw anyone say anything since I do not read lips very well

PS I will listen or read an actual only becasue I cannot believe that he can be that stupid.