On the Weakling's Watch: Islamabad May Fall
For those of us on the conservative side of the aisle, it seems like some sort of twisted April Fool's joke or the opposite sketches on You Can't Do That On Television for any of us to say this, but Hillary Clinton may be the only person in the entire Obama Administration with even half of a brain:"I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists. But look at why this is happening," she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If you talk to people in Pakistan, especially in the ungoverned territories, which are increasing in number, they don't believe the state has a judiciary system that works."
The comments came after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari approved Islamic Sharia law in the northwestern Swat valley, which has been overtaken by Taliban forces.
The Secretary of State is compelled, of course, to tow the Administration's official line on nearly all foreign policy matters, so we won't hear her publicly criticize Obama. However, many of us warned that our enemies would see Barack Obama's attempts to placate them as a sign of weakness, largely because they only understand shows of strength. Failure to show strength will lead to those who pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to the United States being placed in a position of strength in which the United States and its chief ally in the region will be threatened.
If the Taliban take the city of Islamabad, they will likely gain effective control of the Pakistani state, and are liable to get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Dialogue, yeah, that's the ticket. While B. Hussein is busy taking books from Communists and proposing negotiations with holocaust deniers, the Taliban is threatening to gain effective control of the Muslim World's primary nuclear power. Iran and the Taliban both see our so-called leader as a weakling.
Meanwhile, Obama continues with the "Don't Blame Me" Doctrine. At some point, he must begin to shoulder blame. No one is President but Barack Obama, and it is his policy that his departments must enforce.
Prediction: Hillary Clinton will not be Secretary of State by the end of Obama's term.
Labels: Democrats, Duh, Federal politics, Foreign policy
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 2:53 PM
13 Comments:
Oatmeal -
Are you nucking futs? Your boy Bush spent 8 years propping up a corrupt regime that continues to screw us royally by allowing it's own intelligence services to undermine the Afghan government. Obama has been President for less than 100 days and you expect that he can cure the giant clusterfucks Bush left behind? This is why I wish you, and people like you would move to Texas and secede. We don't want you, we don't need you - you don't like us and you hate everything good about this country, so get the hell out! We are tired of you!
Geez, Dave. Dubya was in office for 9 months when we were struck on 9/11, so given your logic he must be held responsible for it since no one was President but him at the time (far more than 100 days) and Al Qaeda must have seen him as a real weakling, correct? You can't have it both ways. BTW, Pakistan has been on the brink since Dubya's tenure when Pervez Musharraf hauled the very judiciary Hillary spoke about into jail, suspended Pakistan's constitution, declared a state of emergency, and installed martial law when the constitutional validity of his re-election was challenged.
Obediah
Weakling? I would hazard a guess that Obama would mop the floor with your flabby ass any day of the week. But then again, probably so would any 5th grade girl in Jefferson County.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David,
Long term bong use can result in Dementia. How Pres. Obama can be the cause of so much, in such a short amount of time is really breathtaking. David, you are really pushing the envelope of credulity with this nonsense.
SteveMule
Oats,
You are good at criticizing Obama (though oddly not Bush), but I've never seen you offer a solution to any of the issues you rail on. What would you do in this situation? What would you have done in the preceding 8 years about the deteriorating situation in Pakistan? Would you invade a country that has nuclear weapons?
Rememeber how Bush handled the situation when it was discovered that Pakistan had been exporting nuclear secrets to terrorist states - he started paying them billions! What should Bush have done at that time? When Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape into Pakistan, should he have asked Musharraf to actually capture him? Should he have cut off aid until Pakistan took some action?
So answer me this - what should Obama do? If he were willing to use military action, would you enlist in the military to aid in the effort? Or would you continue to sit on your cowardly ass in White Pine, Tennessee while the rest of the country fights the battles that you cheer on?
What is it Dave? Will you be too cowardly to answer your country's call?
No more cowardly than those who post anon here.
And for those of you who don't want to make fools of yourselves, here's something to chew on...
Dave has been critical of President Bush, numerous times. In fact, Dave was very vocal about his opposition to the Iraq war and the expansion of the federal government during Bush's two terms.
But never mind...why should you anons let facts get in the way of your arguments?
Matt
Matt,
Can you provide a link on this blog to his opposition to the war?
Thanks,
Anon
Anon,
Honestly? No. It's not because I was lying; I simply don't keep running tallies or daily logs about what Dave has to say.
So, to answer your question, I'll tell you the same thing my momma told me whenever I asked her something she didn't know offhand -- look it up. It's just as easy for you to find it as it would be for me, and if you don't take my word for it, why should I do your footwork for you?
(If you don't believe me, it's no skin off my back...it doesn't make my statement any less true.)
Matt
Your right. I guess I'll just take your word for it. Next you'll tell me that there were WMD in Iraq and Al Qaeda was connected to Saddam Hussein. No need to provide any proof. Sheeple must obey...hmmmm...the kool-aid is tasty...Rush is good...Rush is great...
The point is, you make these bald assertions of fact, and when asked to back them up - you punt! Always!
Your powers of persuasion are severely lacking. You tend to be way to easy to lead into a corner, only to respond in the only way you know how - by using supposedly perjorative terms to accuse the other party of some perceived transgression. Usually it's "liberal!" Bad thing is, I wear that badge with pride - always have. Doesn't hurt me at all.
You need to develop some debate skills. Go find yourself a 3rd grader - take his milk and observe the verbal skills that he uses to try to get his milk back. You are likely to hear your level of argument used - now move forward from that and come back in a couple of years when you've recovered from the inevitable beating by the 3rd grader.
Anon #1> Believe what you want. I really couldn't care less. Your disbelief isn't going to impact me in the slightest, and besides, it's a free country, so you can do what you want.
As I said before, it doesn't make my previous statement any less true.
I simply choose not to do others' homework for them.
Anon #2> Considering that you're hiding behind a banner of anonymity and continue to (attempt to) insult me, I would argue that your debate skills are the ones which are truly lacking.
As for why I did not "back up" my assertion, I gave a completely reasonable explanation regarding why I could not do so immediately.
And frankly, the effort to find said posts in Dave's archives is not worth my time given that I'm dealing with a coward who hides behind anonymity. Perhaps a real person strong enough in their convictions to stand behind them would be worth said time.
Matt,
Reasonable: no. Jerkish: yes. (You didn't say you couldn't "immediately"). However, I will concede your point as I was able to find some posts along this line. It's interesting to see how Dave's writing style has changed since the last few election cycles. It even seemed that SteveMule and Dave had a good rapport going at the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home