When there is no response or a diversion I will point it out.

He has said repeatedly he will sit down and talk with our enemies, that we should talk with our enemies, that it is a sign of strength when you sit down and talk with your enemies. That we should pull out of Iraq and talk, well who are you going to talk to when you talk with our enemies?



Obama: America 'has to talk to its enemies'
As the Democratic CNN/Univision debate kicked off Thursday night, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) faced off over Cuba, with Obama reiterating his position that America "has to talk with its enemies," with Clinton holding to an earlier position that no president should meet with Cuba's new leader unless conditions are met.
The Raw Story | Obama: America 'has to talk to its enemies'

ROFL he WASN'T IN THE SENATE WHEN THEY VOTED!!!!!!!

Me make stuff up how about the above.

Yes they were and Saddam wanted to further his ties with them and was meeting with them as the study releaased earlier this year once again confirmed.

Saddam's Dangerous Friends

But the more salient point is that al Qaeda has been decimated because they made Iraq the larger front in the war........and we defeated them.


Obviously more than you.


I am commenting DIRECTLY on what you stated, it took NO courage on Obama's part. The man who could not even stand up to the racial hatred in his own church has never shown an courage of any kind.


Quote:
I challenge you to show me where Obama has REFUSED action as a response to an ACTUAL threat.


Pakistan hasn't threatend us, they are a soverign state and he is proposing a preemptive strike against them. But the fact is we are already fighting al Qaeda there, it's not for him to propose.

You think the U.S. president paying a visit to say "knock it off" gives the country prestige?

I'm talking to you, and that sure as heck doesn't give YOU any credibility, does it?



I told you I am an independent, for you to say otherwise knowing the fact is now a lie.

How doese voting for candidates other than Republicans make one a Republican?


Give me your proof that I have always voted for only Republicans. You are making a statement of fact about me so back it up.

Then go look up Don Siegleman whom I voted for for governor.

You had the fallcious belief that a conserviative could not be an independent that only liberals could be independent, and that is not true. Being an independent has nothing to do with political phiolosophy it concerns party affiliation. There is a difference.

Keep it in context...


Amazing how you explicitly quote the fact that they were talking about CUBA, yet you turn around and try to insinuate vague "enemies".
He has explicitly said he will not talk to terrorists.
And you ignore that by repeatedly quoting him talking about "enemies".

Your attempts to take this out of context are underwhelming...

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.

They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'

Iraq and Al Qaeda are not obvious allies. In fact, they are natural enemies. A central tenet of Al Qaeda's jihadist ideology is that secular Muslim rulers and their regimes have oppressed the believers and plunged Islam into a historic crisis. Hence, a paramount goal of Islamist revolutionaries for almost half a century has been the destruction of the regimes of such leaders as Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar el-Sadat and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, the military government in Algeria and even the Saudi royal family.

To contemporary jihadists, Saddam Hussein is another in a line of dangerous secularists, an enemy of the faith who refuses to rule by Shariah and has habitually murdered Sunni and Shiite religious leaders in Iraq who might oppose his regime. During the Persian Gulf war, Omar Abdel Rahman, the radical sheik now imprisoned in the United States, summed up the Islamist view when he was asked what the punishment should be for those who supported the United States in the conflict. He answered, ''Both [those] who are against and the ones who are with Iraq should be killed.''

Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda Are Not Allies - New York Times

Repeating this tired lie that Saddam had links to al Qaeda is absurd!


al Qaeda was dealt a MAJOR blow in Afghanistan.
Then, we opened up the door for them in Iraq. Our actions gave them a RECRUITING DRIVE that INCREASED the terrorist threat.


I am amused at how you claim "directly commenting", while you change the subject to include "Wright".
Anybody else fooled by this bait and dodge technique?


And another dodge.
You were just talking about no courage, and Obama has explicitly stated that he is prepared to order military strikes AGAINST AL QAEDA in Pakistan.
And typical of your obfuscational ploy, you ignore the AL QAEDA aspect, and pretend he is just wildly talking about bombing Pakistan WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE REASON.

So, to put this in perspective.
Attack "al Qaeda" in Iraq, when they weren't even there before...
And if "al Qaeda" shows up in Pakistan, they are a "sovreign state".



Re-read what I said.
You are lying about what you claim I "said".



Obfuscational response.
I stated, quite clearly, that if somebody votes ONLY Republican and then proclaiming "independent", that claim of "independent" is false.

I never said anything about "voting for candidates other than republicans makes one a republican".


I never claimed you "have always voted for only Republicans".
It is my personal belief that you aren't even eligible to vote in this country in the first place.

I said "IF ..."
Do you know what "if" means?

The shifting context.

"There's definitely been an adjustment in what was initially a pretty categorical position," said Ross Baker, a political scientist a Rutgers University. "As (Obama) has gone around the country campaigning, he has realized he's had to fine-tune his position."


That was just one incident and he did not qualify it, he said our enemies and alQaeda is one of our enemies.


As I have already cited, they found no incidence where the collaborated in a terrorist attack.

And SINCE then as I cited from the most recently discovered evidence, they DID have a relationship as the Bush administration, and the rest of the intelligence community, had stated. In fact it was more complex and more developed than we had thought.

That he pocessed the WMD that UNSCOM had confirmed he had and were never found.

And that is true, already cited the link and posted from the latest evidence.

You need to get up to speed on this.


the 2008 reports states

"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance
of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.""



No it is the fact, you should read the latest reports.

The door was already open to them to move into Iraq under a friendly government, we SHUT that door to them by removing Saddam and his reqiem. They decided to make that their front line, which was a mistake on their part because it was to OUR advantage that they did so. And they have suffered a decisive defeat.

yes I was,

Yes added to his lack of courage which you claim he has merely because he says something.

Hey I'm right here to continue to refute your claim the man has some how shown he has courage.............still waiting.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Pakistan hasn't threatend us, they are a soverign state and he is proposing a preemptive strike against them.
Well first off are you supporting a preemptive strike against Pakistan, and someone needs to tell Obama we are already fighting alQaeda there so he is proposing something we are already doing...yeah that takes LOTS of courage.

So pre-empitve strikes are sudden OK? And hint: we are already using special forces to strike them there.


so how about it, are pre-emptive strikes in other countries OK now?

Wrong they were not only there but the Saddam regiem was supporting them elsewhere.

Pakistan is a soverign state, if we use military force there it is crossing over into a soverign state in a preemptive attack.

Directed at me trying to refute my statement that I am an independent.

Remember

"SC has a point. If you claim "independent", but only support Republicans, you're just assuming a title you don't deserve. "

So your evidence that I only vote for Republicans is?

No. The EXISTING context.
You quote Obama talking about enemies, referencing Cuba.
And from there, you try to misrepresent things to pretend he referencing ANY enemy...


"a pretty categorical position".
Quote me anywhere where he said he would talk to terrorists.

The only "fine tuning" was in his failure to recognize that wing-nut pundits would take what he ACTUALLY said, and ACTUALLY intended, and twist it into discussing with anybody somebody else could define as an "enemy".


My statement went well beyond that statement to specify "no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda".


Wrong.
I have quoted NUMEROUS sources demonstrating there WAS no relationship.
There IS no relationship.


So you are a historical revisionist then...
Ignore the actual evidence at hand, and just continue to proclaim the claims that are repeatedly disproven...


Name me the "recent" evidence which justifies this claim...

"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations.[/quote]
If you actually READ that quote, it doesn't say there is a collaborative link.
It refers to it as a "de facto" link, because there IS NO REAL LINK.

It CLAIMS a link just because the two organizations were claimed to have "overlapping" goals.
One could say Fred Phelpls and the RNC have "overlapping goals" as well.
Doesn't mean that they actually COLLABORATE together. (And THAT is the issue at hand...)


And not one word of an ACTUAL LINK between al Qaeda and Saddam.
HOW would they supposedly "work together"?

Furthermore, it should be noted that what you quote does NOT come from the CIA, or any other government Central Intelligence organization of another country.
It comes from a "military think tank".
It comes from a non-profit CORPORATION.


Quote any evidence which shows they had a PRESENCE in Iraq.
You can't.


Already been done in pointing out his willingness to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan.
You condemned him for that courage and dedication.
But I'm betting dollars to donuts that any similar Bush action is praised by you, "sovreign nation" be damned under the "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality...


Quit lying.
The attack is against AL QAEDA.
Are you saying that if AL QAEDA is found in Pakistan, we should leave them alone?


You are amazing.
You have previously criticized Obama for talking about something you NOW describe as "something we are already doing".
Any other contradictory stances you want to reveal?


I never made any comment on "pre-emptive strikes".
Quit trying to change the subject.


Again, the whole statement was predicated on an IF...
... for a scenario you still haven't found the cajones to confirm or deny.
Answer the question.
Assuming you are eligible, have you ever voted Democrat in a presidential election?

Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Foreign Policy

Furthermore...

Hamas is the current leadership in the Palestinian territories.

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I don't care who he meets with myself. Again it sounds juvenile saying you won't talk to people. Nobody says you need to agree with people in order to meet with them. Children let their emotions and passion control their reason and patience.

Let me tell you a little story

One day farmer John hooked up his stock trailer and headed down the road.

One bull said to the other. "Where did the farmer go?" "To get another bull" said his friend. "Well he's not getting any of my cows" said the first bull. "Well he isn't getting any of mine" said the other. Then a lttle bull ran up and said. "He's not getting any of mine either"
A little later the farmer pulls up. He gets out and walks back to the trailer. He opens the gate and leads out the biggest baddest looking bull you ever saw. He had muscles on muscles. He snorted smoke and his eyes were red. He must have been a ton at least. The ground shook.
So the first bull says to the second bull "Well I guess he can have a few of my cows" The second bull said "Sure, I don't need so many cows"
Then the smallest bull ran right up in front of the new bull. He started snorting and scratching at the ground aggressively. The other two bulls looked on in?amazement. "Are you nuts? What the hell are you doing? "
The small bull looks up and said "I just want to make sure this big son of a bitch knows I'm a bull too"

It doesn't have anything to do with this but its a humdinger.

I really don't get why some people think TALKING is so bad.
Some people have misconstrued it as "appeasement", which is inane.
He could go over them and "talk" to them to say "Knock it off or I'm going to f### you up".

During the Cold War, did we ever have a stance where America insisted it should NEVER talk to Russia?
I don't remember any such thing, and they had the capability to destroy us multiple times over.
Hell. We talked to them as they were trying to install nukes in Cuba, right???


What you just did is equivalent to saying "Widget-stan held diplomatic talks with America today. The leader of Widget-stan met with the RNC."


The leader of Widget-stan would meet with the PRESIDENT. The president may be a member of the RNC, but he is meeting with the President.