This is interesting. In an article that describes frustration by the State Department over recent hawk-like commentary coming from presidential candidates, only the Republican is labeled a "radical."
First it was Barack Obama's talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.
(emphasis mine)
I'd wager that threatening to invade Pakistan (a country with nuclear capabilities and whose U.S.-friendly prime minister is hanging on by his fingernails), and keeping the nuclear option on the table could be considered just as radical as bombing Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities for Muslims. However, as these comments were made by Democrat frontrunners, they're not radical.
They butt heads, spar. They're bold, even. But they're not radical!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
buttheads indeed
August 3, 2007 - 14:55 ET by Free Thinkerbuttheads indeed
Go Tom Go
August 3, 2007 - 14:58 ET by River CityIf Tom is radical I say he needs to keep it goin'. He joined the race to keep immigration on the table. His purpose is to be an agitator. He is doing a good job.
Go Tom Go!!!
“You don’t understand. I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen.” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX
Tancredo's not a coward
August 3, 2007 - 15:08 ET by sarcasmoTancredo's not a coward when it comes to debating the other candidates, either, which makes him "one of the good guys" in my book. Plus, as I've been saying since Jan., it's good if ANY of the non-northeastern-RINOs gets noticed because that works against most of the news media's obvious agenda.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Pam, Are you ever going
August 3, 2007 - 15:34 ET by LeonPam,
Are you ever going to objectively show liberal bias or are all of your posts going to be passed through your subjective filter?
Seriously, with each post you make, your causal anlaysis becomes increasingly tenuous. I've not yet seen one post from you that can be proven.
Let's look at your post and analyze which person is more radical:
1) Obama - wants to invade pakistan - why? B/C they openly harbor Al Qaeda, our supposed enemy in the supposed war on terror
2) Tancredo - wantonly bomb MUSLIM holy sites despite the fact that it would affect millions of people that have nothing to do with terrorism
So Obama wants to specifically target AL QAEDA/TERRORISTS in a country that openly supports terrorism
Tancredo wants to target ALL Muslims.
Now...which position seems more radical?
Now...which position seems more radical?
August 3, 2007 - 15:39 ET by misterbillNow...which position seems more radical?
answer--Obama's
Oh sorry, I thought you asked which was more "irrational".
But you are right---Tancredo's is more radical as in:
radical -
1.
of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference
Misterbill, You can't be
August 3, 2007 - 15:42 ET by LeonMisterbill,
You can't be serious.
You all claim to be tough on terror and then sit back while our supposed ALLY provides a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
How is this ok? I thought you wanted to win the war on terror. How are we going to win if we don't go after the terrorists?
The only answer is this. You don't care about fighting terrorists. You want to fight ALL muslims. That's fine. Radical, and insane, but at least now I understand where you're coming from.
If we still had the draft---
August 3, 2007 - 15:46 ET by misterbillIf we still had the draft---I would hope that you would be one of those assigned to find Osama (Obama?? I get confused.).
I care very much about fighting terrorists and I hold all Muslims who do not protest the terroists actions in as much contempt as I hold Americans who want to pull out. (Cowards , too!)
Feel free to go down to your local recruiting station and enlist on the condition that you be assigned to fight terrorists.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author:
Ok MB, So how does your
August 3, 2007 - 15:49 ET by LeonOk MB,
So how does your post dispute the fact that we shouldn't allow our supposed ally to harbor our supposed enemy?
I don't see what any of what has been said so far has anything to do with me.
Your naivete' and lack of knowledge is amazing.
August 3, 2007 - 15:59 ET by misterbillYour naivete' and lack of knowledge is amazing. Just sit back and try to be the leader of Pakistan. How many of your constituents are on your side?? How many want you dead and would kill you in a second, given the opportunity. How many of your people will help Al Qaeda and Osama to hide out, to train? How far can you, as the Pres of Pakistan go, to achieve the results we all want in America?? How long would you last?? How many of your army and police are sympathetic to Al Qaeda. How many are actively aiding and abetting? How many soldiers/police do I need to shut the enemy down? Is the enemy the enemy of all my people?? If not, how many of my people see Al Qaeda as the enemy?? Are my people more engrossed in thir daily struggle to survive. Do they give a hoot who wins or loses? Do they see their world as better if Al Qaeda survives? Or are they like most fat ass (thanks to Jay Leno) Americans who prefer to sit around and enjoy life's pleasures and not know squat about what's happening.
Leon, you don't know squat!!!!!
Need I remind you that
August 3, 2007 - 20:28 ET by AJNeed I remind you that Pakistan happens to have nuclear weapons and a relatively strong army? Invading allied lands is a very dangerous tactic especially when those allied lands have standing, well-trained armies. What I find awefully ironic here is that you Libs seem to be all for "diplomacy" but yet you want to invade a modern country (modern, at least, by military standards) without even asking some questions first. Jeez, I can just see Obama getting into office and arrogantly blasting, "We must invade Pakistan. It is where the enemy is!" What about a debate in Congress? What about a vote? What about considering that, jeez, Pakistan has a relatively large arsenal of nuclear weapons. You see, you know well that you're trying to blind-side Conservatives by saying that you "want to go after the terrorists" and yet you would risk diplomatic relations just to "go after the terrorists". And if Obama would be elected president (I'd move to Canada or Mexico) and he did invade Pakistan, his approval rating would drop faster and farther than is President Bush's. My God, why not just follow your little Liberal ideal of "diplomacy" and try pressuring Pakistan into searching it's own country through diplomatic talks.
I don't know about y'all, but...
August 3, 2007 - 15:54 ET by sarcasmoAs a taxpayer, what I truly love about this country is paying more than $24 million this year for something we don't have. Such spending almost brings tears to my eyes... Or makes me work harder to change big government once and for all.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Between Darfur and Iran---
August 3, 2007 - 16:02 ET by misterbillBetween Darfur and Iran---I'd better close my window. I feel a draft coming on.
I'm too old for it to
August 3, 2007 - 16:15 ET by sarcasmoI'm too old for it to personally matter, since no military wants old people, but I sincerely believe the late Milton Friedman was and is right about the draft. A voluntary military policy has yielded amazing excellence and a world class US military second to none, as I'm sure you'd agree. I think we should keep it voluntary & second to none by all means, but politicians have been historically unwise with money, and unwilling to close unused or useless things they've created (the Department of Education & the FCC both come to mind, among many others, but I digress...).
Regardless of the merits of Friedman's arguments (which are all much better stated than mine ever could be) though, I would hope you agree with me that spending that much tax money on something you yourself said that we "don't have" seems a bit silly, doesn't it? I mean, that's a lot of money. WTF do these bureaucrats really DO with that much loot?? I mean, I could do almost-nothing for only a million bucks a year, and save the taxpayers over $20 million!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I don't want you to think I prostitute myself---
August 3, 2007 - 16:18 ET by misterbillI don't want you to think I prostitute myself---I will gladly do nothing for only $100,000 per year. Oh, don't you just love a free market, competitive economy????
Sarc, maybe they should put
August 3, 2007 - 16:02 ET by MightyMouthSarc, maybe they should put that 24 mil towards enforcing the 18th amendment. Would make more sense to this congress than.. oh say...NOT spending it at all!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
realize
August 3, 2007 - 16:53 ET by Fed_Up_with_FedsEveryone here needs to realize that calling Pakistan an ally is like calling a rapist a lover.
Pakistan has all but cut the Waziristan province from the rest of the country yet they still protect the Al Queda scum that has holed up there. If the Pakistani government can't control the area perhaps they shouild step aside and not hinder the hunters.
Well, your spin is better
August 3, 2007 - 16:19 ET by c5thenObama wants to invade an ally country because the government has trouble controlling one of it's provinces where the taliban were born. Obama also will meet unconditionally with any dictator to just chat and say "hey".
Tancredo wants to have an open upfront policy that if a US city is attacked by atomic weapons of whatever type, the retaliation will be to Muslim Holy sites. Kind of like the MAD policy during the Cold War.
Did you see the video of the cheering and dancing "peacefull" muslims in Syria and Pakistan when they heard of the bridge collapse in Minnisota? I did. I have yet to hear one muslim condemn that display. The US didn't hesitate to respond to the muslims who were devastated by the tsunami in 2003. You didn't see any US citizens dancing around and cheering about it. We all donated over $300 million toward the releif efforts.
Tell me again how we know that the enemy is NOT all of Islam and just a small radical fringe element? If there aren't a host of moderate muslims speaking out against the fringe element, how are we to know that they all don't agree, but it's just a few who are vocal and active about it?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Leon, Pam didn't say
August 3, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Ruths husband BenLeon, Pam didn't say Tancredo's position wasn't radical, she was just pointing out that Obama's was also radical, but was not being framed as such by the media. From your answer, I conclude that you don't think the idea of invading a nuclear capable country in violation of international law, thereby violating that country's sovereignty constitutes a radical position. This proposed invasion would of course be based on intelligence, which as we all know is capable of being mistaken (for example, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Please explain why such a move by Obama would be considered thoughtful and not "radical."
Leon, your incredible. Can
August 3, 2007 - 18:20 ET by bassndudeLeon, your incredible. Can you not see the insanity, not to mention his ignorance is his former position? He is aginst war, voted aginst it, cryes about it all the time and wants to pull out the troops. Yet on the other hand, he wants to start a whole new war, with a diffrent country, and all the while crys that the the military is already streached to thin? He's a total wack job.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yeah, you're right bass.
August 3, 2007 - 19:15 ET by LeonYeah, you're right bass. Who wants to fight those crazy old terrorists anyways?
I thought you guys were serious about this whole war on terror thing. Now it gets tough and you're backing down? I haven't heard much backing down about Iran. They're a sovereign nation developiong nuclear capabilities. We're not even that sure what they mean in the war on terror. Many uncertainties, yet many people are certain that we should go after them.
Yet we KNOW for sure that Pakistan is harboring Al Qaeda, thus an enemy of America. This is a known fact...and people balk. I genuinely do not understand.
Of course you don't
August 3, 2007 - 19:18 ET by BlondeOf course you don't Leon.
We all know the roots of your fat-phobia.
You were the fat little kid who was beaten up by your supposed friend.
So you genuinely believe Obama's stance on invading an ally (granted not an England style ally, but an ally nonetheless) adds anything substantial to the War on Terror?
Defend it. On its merits. And quit feigning ignorance.
Blonde, Defend it you
August 3, 2007 - 19:25 ET by LeonBlonde,
Defend it you say? Ok, Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans and our 'ally' is allowing them to grow and strengthen openly. Hmmm. It's not rocket science.
Now allow me to counter question: Is an 'ally' really an ally when they support our enemy?
No, no, Leon. Defend
August 3, 2007 - 19:28 ET by BlondeNo, no, Leon.
Defend Obama's willingness to invade an ally.
No liberal deflecting allowed tonite.
You must cite geo-politics, with references. As well as the real-politic in Pakistan.
Continue, please. Since you state it's not rocket science.
Blonde, Did you even read
August 3, 2007 - 19:34 ET by LeonBlonde,
Did you even read my post before you responded?
Pakistan is not an ally. No country that supports Al Qaeda is our ally. What are you talking about? If Iran was openly allowing Al Qaeda to persist, you would call for a good old fashioned nuking I'm sure.
The right proclaims this might quest against the forces of terror, but then doesn't actually fight the terror. We fight an awful lot of Sunnis, some Kurds, the occasional Saudi, a Taliban or two, but I'm not seeing a lot of Al Qaeda killing. What gives?
You don't care about Osama, you don't care about Pakistan. You ignoree the obvious enemy while you justify tenuous rationales to the death. How can this be? How can you be so willfully hypocritical?
AGAIN, IT'S SIMPLE. ANY COUNTRY THAT SUPPORTS AL QAEDA IS NOT OUR ALLY.
Of course I read your
August 3, 2007 - 19:40 ET by BlondeOf course I read your irrational reply, silly Leon.
And tossed off all of your normal deflection and stupidity without comment.
You have no knowledge about what I care or care not about.
I challenged you to defend Obama's statement that he'd find it okay to invade an ally. You may thrash around all you'd like, but Pakistan is an ally. You may continue to ineffectively thrash around that Pakistan is not an ally, but you can't prove it, because it isn't true!
So, I challenge you again. Defend B. Hussein Obama's notion. It's okay to invade an ally. It's where you started here.
Back to work Leon. No deflecting allowed.
Blonde, You're ignoring the
August 3, 2007 - 19:46 ET by LeonBlonde,
You're ignoring the elephant in the room. Al Qaeda. I've justified myself. We should go into Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda. Pakistan is not our ally. Do you really consider a country that supports a group that murdered 3,000 american citizens an ALLY????
I'm not thrashing around. I'm being very clear. Pakistan is not an ally because they support al qaeda. Don't you want to fight al qaeda?
When I answer this final question, you owe me the respect of answering at least one of my questions. It's okay to invade an ally? NO! But I don't see what that question has to do with al qaeda supporting Pakistan
No Leon, I'm not. I
August 3, 2007 - 19:52 ET by BlondeNo Leon, I'm not.
I challenged you to defend B. Hussein Obama's contention that it was okay to invade an ally.
You are continuing to deflect. You ARE thrashing around.
Why don't you just "cry uncle". It will save you alot of embarassment here.
Try again. You might try to prove that Pakistan is not an ally. By official means of the government of the United States of America. Not in your own fevered liberal mind.
I owe you no respect whatsover, since you are entirely incapable of proving your most basic premise.
Blonde, This is crazy.
August 3, 2007 - 20:54 ET by LeonBlonde,
This is crazy. I'm done. One last time. How are they an ally if they support Al Qaeda? Just answer that one question and we can proceed.
Your question is not valid because it ignores the presence of AL Qaeda. Comparing Pakistan to England is hilarious. England wasn't openly allowing Nazis to live and train and recruit in their country.
Yeah, Leon, Stick a fork
August 3, 2007 - 21:01 ET by BlondeYeah, Leon,
Stick a fork in you, you are well and truly done.
You've failed miserably at each and every one of your attempts at deflection. Including your newest one here.
You failed to disprove the premise of my original question.
Pakistan is a de facto and de jure ally of the United States of America. As much as you in the fever swamp would try to deny it (you and your pal, Obama, whom you apparently find to be indefensible).
Nighto, Leon.
You lose, loser.
Better luck next time. I'd suggest a debating class before you reingage, here.
The Woodshed
August 3, 2007 - 21:30 ET by BlondeDoes anyone here suspect Leon has slunk away from the Woodshed, yet again?
Yes, indeed, Blonde, I have
August 4, 2007 - 02:08 ET by AJYes, indeed, Blonde, I have noticed this, too. By the way, Leon. As a person who has watched you flounder around in all of these little skirmishes, may I give you some advice: in any type of debate (including arguments), answering a question with a question is the worst possible defense (you'd get an F in college for that). As a matter of fact, it stalls the debate and becomes something like two swordsmen pressing their swords against each other in combat. Absolutely nothing is happening. I hope that if you ever return to college or similiar institution and take a debate class that you follow my advice carefully. I have been scorned by professors for having a good issue to defend, but not defending it very well. I.E.: I answered questions with questions. And also, you cannot simply state your opinion and not defend it. Saying "Pakistan is our enemy because they harbor terrorists" is a poor defense. Why? Because reality has conflicting arguments: Pakistan is our ally. You first need to strike down the fact that they are our ally (good luck with that) and then convince us, the audience, that they are our enemy. (And yes, you are debating when you come to this website looking for a fight.) Therefore, you have yet to defend your position correctly.
Believe me, on Newsbusters, you are arguing with a wide range of people. Be careful what you say because people will roll all over the floor laughing at your statements. (I can tell you that so far, I've knocked my cup of orange juice over nearly twice since I started reading your "Pakistan is not our ally" arguments.)
Leon
August 4, 2007 - 03:05 ET by Cool ArrowYou're an American and you support Al Qaeda.
Why base your reasoning on the actions of an ally?
Blonde, Quick
August 3, 2007 - 19:40 ET by LeonBlonde,
Quick Question: Do you always argue simply for the sake of arguing?
No, Leon. Only when I
August 3, 2007 - 19:41 ET by BlondeNo, Leon.
Only when I feel like showing how galactically stupid liberal trolls can be.
Blonde, I'm sorry but in
August 3, 2007 - 19:47 ET by LeonBlonde,
I'm sorry but in the timeless words the distinguished QueenMum.
"You're embarassing yourself"
How am i stupid for wanting to fight Al Qaeda?
Leon,In your own
August 3, 2007 - 19:54 ET by BlondeLeon,
In your own words....you are sorry.
You have no idea how sorry you really appear, do you?
Pathetic, Leon. Truly pathetic.
Leon, for the love of God.
August 4, 2007 - 02:16 ET by AJLeon, for the love of God. Look back at all your posts in this comment thread. You posted an opposing point of view and coming to this site--- a Conservative site, you are asking for a fight. Blonde simply stood up and decided to take you on. It'd be pretty much the same if one of us went over to some Lib site and posted an opposing point of view... wait, no it wouldn't. There'd be an angry mob of pissed off Stalinists-- err, Liberals posting every 3 and half seconds wherein every other word of every reply would be the F word, S word, or some other foul language utterance. Then after an hour of no rebuttals from said opposer, the angry mob would bask in it's glory, barking: "Yep, we won cuz he left and we swore him to death. Awesome-ness abounds."
Tancredo Is Correct
August 3, 2007 - 21:25 ET by ConservativeRexTancredo is correct because ALL mooslims target us. That is, if they are practicing their religion according to their book. So , in answer to your question, Trancredo is the more reasonable of the two.
radical repub
August 3, 2007 - 16:30 ET by dubuquemanIt is so frustrating that there is no one at the AP to whom you can direct any protest. Can you imagine the AP ever referring to someone as a "radical Democrat"? I'd settle for "liberal Democrat."
Osama, Obama and Playing to Win
August 3, 2007 - 17:11 ET by HeikiComments about weaknesses of foreign ''ally in the war on terror'' aside, the real, ultimate goal of the War on Terror is to protect the U.S. and its interests. This includes the entirety of available options to the U.S., including (God forbid) use of the nuclear arsenal. The primary goal, as (IMO) pursued by the current administration, is to overthrow a widely acknowledged dangerous regime with an easily presumed (if not now, when) linkage to Islamist terrorists, and hopefully create a sea-change in ideology in the heart of the Islamic world. Barring that, you get, over time, an intelligence-driven map of where the highest concentrations of lunatics are, and make a parking lot out of those places and pick up the pieces afterward. That's the extreme end of the proposal, but one that's not entirely out of the picture, in terms of ultimate national interest. In between are everything between accommodating the enemy and letting their values govern, retreating to a ''terrorism is a criminal matter best left to law enforcement agencies'' position, to air drops of pornography over enemy cities. I think that the current policy is a good first step. And I think that nearly all Iraqis will thank us in the long term. If we don't abandon our responsibility to them.
Radical means ?
August 3, 2007 - 19:20 ET by woolI suppose, to the left- which, of course, means the msm- radical means someone with strong beliefs- except for muslims. The msm often applies strong descriptives to Repubs, Christians, those the question mans impact on global warming, etc.
Obama not getting off on the good foot w/ pakistan.
August 4, 2007 - 00:44 ET by mastersofdeceitOh my look at all the hate and tension this guy is causing. Obama must be a radical!
One fatwa coming up.