quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Faith moves mountains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Repeat, with emphasis: HE WAS ALREADY UNDER INDICTMENT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY LEGAL BASIS TO HOLD HIM

Repeat, with emphasis: The 9/11 Commission (once again) disagrees with you.  Did you neglect to read all the way to the end?  I made it big and bold above so you can't miss it.

I read it and the language was compromised from the original text in the spirit of a "bi-partisan" commission. Give me an alternative, plausible explanation for WJCs words.

Nope, not playing that game.  Already gave you the 9/11 Commission own report to explain Clinton's words.  If you have trouble comprehending how "there was no indictment outstanding" synchs up with "we had no basis on which to hold him", then you're beyond help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Repeat, with emphasis: HE WAS ALREADY UNDER INDICTMENT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY LEGAL BASIS TO HOLD HIM

Repeat, with emphasis: The 9/11 Commission (once again) disagrees with you.  Did you neglect to read all the way to the end?  I made it big and bold above so you can't miss it.

I read it and the language was compromised from the original text in the spirit of a "bi-partisan" commission. Give me an alternative, plausible explanation for WJCs words.

Nope, not playing that game.  Already gave you the 9/11 Commission own report to explain Clinton's words.  If you have trouble comprehending how "there was no indictment outstanding" synchs up with "we had no basis on which to hold him", then you're beyond help.

I accept your concession that there is no other plausible interpretation of Clintons own words, since you cant provide one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"I accept your concession that there is no other plausible interpretation of Clintons own words, since you cant provide one. "


We`re still waiting "for you to provide" proof that there is a liberal media bias.pssst  You saying so isn`t proof.lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-22-voa66.cfm

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has harshly criticized Pakistan's government saying it has abdicated to the Taliban, adding the potential collapse of the Pakistani state would pose a mortal threat to global security. "

Now can we understand why no more nations should have nuclear weapons? So what if Pakistan does fall to the Taliban or the loosely confederate groups that Pakistan is facing?

"We cannot underscore [enough] the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely-confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, which as we all know is a nuclear-armed state," she said."

Even a progressive such as Clinton sees the danger that could occur. This is pretty strong talk, and very similar talk about another country several years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-22-voa66.cfm

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has harshly criticized Pakistan's government saying it has abdicated to the Taliban, adding the potential collapse of the Pakistani state would pose a mortal threat to global security. "

Now can we understand why no more nations should have nuclear weapons? So what if Pakistan does fall to the Taliban or the loosely confederate groups that Pakistan is facing?

"We cannot underscore [enough] the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances, now within hours of Islamabad, that are being made by a loosely-confederated group of terrorists and others who are seeking the overthrow of the Pakistani state, which as we all know is a nuclear-armed state," she said."

Even a progressive such as Clinton sees the danger that could occur. This is pretty strong talk, and very similar talk about another country several years ago.

After parsing the above quote of Clinton's statement, just where is she stating something that is incorrect?  I am watching an interview of the president of Afghanistan and a highly placed official of Pakistan and they are saying basically the same thing.  For weeks I have watched the so called "experts" say the same thing.  If anything, she is behind the curve.

quote:

He didnt say she was incorrect. The only one who is mishandling things is Blowboy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

He didnt say she was incorrect. The only one who is mishandling things is Blowboy.

The reason I copied OrionTheWolf's opening entry was that it contained the quotes that the replies were addressing.   I realize he was not claiming she was incorrect. I needed the quotes.

In first reading the replies, I felt that some were criticizing her for stating a truism that has been uttered by many of late. (Although in re reading the replies I have to confess some confuse me as to what they are claiming: eg, that the statement is wrong; that the statement is reckless etc.

As to your statement "That the only one who is mishandling  things  is Blowboy," I do not know who Blowboy is but will assume it refers to Obama.  If we attributed the quoted language to Obama, is that part of your allegation of mismanagement?  Does the statement somehow become incorrect because Obama now is the source? On military matters we are probably kindred spirits.  However, I would never put troops on the ground in Pakistan; been there, done that about 30 years ago and would never consent to it again.  Using air power alone will not resolve the matter.  Using air power and tactical nuclear might, but might not. The best bet would be to manuver India and Pakistan into a religious war, but who would win?  What should Obama be doing that he is not doing now?  Anything he might do would seem to weaken the main government which is the wrong thing to do.  When the experts say this is the biggest problem in the foreign affairs area in 50 years could it be because there is no answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

He didnt say she was incorrect. The only one who is mishandling things is Blowboy.

The reason I copied OrionTheWolf's opening entry was that it contained the quotes that the replies were addressing.   I realize he was not claiming she was incorrect. I needed the quotes.

In first reading the replies, I felt that some were criticizing her for stating a truism that has been uttered by many of late. (Although in re reading the replies I have to confess some confuse me as to what they are claiming: eg, that the statement is wrong; that the statement is reckless etc.

As to your statement "That the only one who is mishandling  things  is Blowboy," I do not know who Blowboy is but will assume it refers to Obama.  If we attributed the quoted language to Obama, is that part of your allegation of mismanagement?  Does the statement somehow become incorrect because Obama now is the source? On military matters we are probably kindred spirits.  However, I would never put troops on the ground in Pakistan; been there, done that about 30 years ago and would never consent to it again.  Using air power alone will not resolve the matter.  Using air power and tactical nuclear might, but might not. The best bet would be to manuver India and Pakistan into a religious war, but who would win?  What should Obama be doing that he is not doing now?  Anything he might do would seem to weaken the main government which is the wrong thing to do.  When the experts say this is the biggest problem in the foreign affairs area in 50 years could it be because there is no answer?

No...I agree with Clinton.   Im not attributing it to Blowbama (that should clarify that issue :) ).  What I was referring to was the many missteps that he's already made regarding foreign policy, from minor blunders like bowing to apologizing for America,  being pushed around at the economic summit, coming across as Chavez' bitch, his naivete in his approach to Iran..I could go on and on.

He made one decent appointment and he should let her run foreign policy, because he is totally lost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

From what I have been reading, she has been doing pretty well with the Afghanistan-Pakistan issues. I am sure once many of the immediate things are taken care of, she may be able to focus more on the Palestinian issue.

The biggest reason I posted this is because many Dems have accused me in the past of fear mongering, when I have mentioned the dangers of the Taliban or other radicals in those areas, getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Now since it is coming from Secretary Clinton, they may actually try and look into what is going on, rather than take a partisan approach of opposing anything mentioned to address the immediate dangers.

I do not have any problems so far with how she has been doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

From what I have been reading, she has been doing pretty well with the Afghanistan-Pakistan issues. I am sure once many of the immediate things are taken care of, she may be able to focus more on the Palestinian issue.

The biggest reason I posted this is because many Dems have accused me in the past of fear mongering, when I have mentioned the dangers of the Taliban or other radicals in those areas, getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Now since it is coming from Secretary Clinton, they may actually try and look into what is going on, rather than take a partisan approach of opposing anything mentioned to address the immediate dangers.

I do not have any problems so far with how she has been doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
We`re still waiting "for you to provide" proof that there is a liberal media bias.pssst  You saying so isn`t proof.lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Orion, you just bolstered my argument. She shouldn't be getting the U.S. "involved" in "The Palistinian issue."
That's between Israel and Palistine not the U.S.

quote:


Israel blows up part of Palistine so the U.S. Taxpayers are *expected* to pony up $900m to re-build it???
This is *exactly* the type of thing that our government shouldn't be doing. Our govt. needs to remember who they're working for.

quote:


They should not be getting us involved in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Didn't we have enough of that kind of thing under Bush and Clinton?

quote:


President Obama promised us "Change", so far it's beginning to look like we're going to have "four more years of Bush policies."
Where's the beef? Where's the "Change?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I've always seen most Democrats make the exact opposite argument.

quote:


That we were fighting the wrong war and had diverted resources to Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan.

quote:


Meanwhile, I've seen Republicans consistently defend the Iraq invasion while downplaying the importance of capturing Bin-Laden or Omar and claiming victory over Al-Quaeda and theTaliban.  Particularly the Bush administration itself.

Even just a few weeks ago many here were arguing against Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.