Members DevotedToAMC Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 And Roman did not know my reaction so I had to post it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 LOL. Naw. We knew she would win. We just didn't know by how much. It still gives people something to think about: yes, she did win the state she was supposed to, but.......she had a over-20 point lead, and itmay be 10 points or less. On top of the fact that she has made some statements that have more or less went under the radar. She talks about Barack and his miscues...... When one comes out and says that she would launch nuclear weapons (No matter who started what) that may tend to scare folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 The bitter comment really hurt him in that state. He truly needs to workon how he words things from now on, if he wants to be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricaKane70 Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 Congrats to hillrod.lol This race is never gonna end. I totally can see this as a tv movie in like 10 years.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 Just like some folks were scared when he said he wanted to attack Pakistan....they are both guilty of suggesting we attack another nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 They can have Susan Lucci play Hillary Clinton (with a blonde wig) and Mario Van Peebles as Barack Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 Today, Senator Obama gave an interview to Pennsylvania radio host Michael Smerconish. The focus of the interview was on foreign policy, specifically the redirection of U.S. funds and military efforts towards al Qaida and their safe-havens in Pakistan. Smerconish asked Obama what his approach would be towards Pakistan and the tribal areas that harbor members of al Qaida. Obama highlighted the need for a stronger relationship with the new democratically elected government, as well as making the financial aid Pakistan receives from the U.S. in some ways contingent upon Pakistan making a "serious effort" at halting terrorist activity in the tribal regions. Interesting..........don'ts ee anything about using nuclear weapons. At the AFL-CIO candidate forum last August after Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., got into a heated exchange about Obama's pledge to attack targets within Pakistan -- with or without the Pakistani government's permission -- should he as president get actionable intelligence of high-value al Qaeda targets in that country. Nothing in there either about bombing Pakistan. I'll keep looking, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 He mentioned bombing Pakistan in a debate...I can find a blog about his comments towards Pakistan from the guide at the politics board I post at but he did make mention of it. I think, since making that remark, he has backed off that idea...now, it appears that Hillary is backing off of the "Let's bomb Iran in retaliation for their air strike against Israel" mantra. Good! I am for attacking Al Queda (sp?) targets in Pakistan if all other options (diplomatic) have been exhausted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 When did she back off of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 According to my friend at the politics board, he said she appears to be of a different mindset now about Iran. I also don't consider (just throwing this out there) the Kyl/Lieberman amendment to be legislation towards a war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked 8 hours ago CONSHOHOCKEN, Pennsylvania (AFP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran if the Islamic Republic was ever "reckless" enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. She later said her remark was an attempt to lay out a rationale for a Cold War-style system of deterrence with Iran, but her rival Barack Obama accused her of saber-rattling, as Pennsylvania held its crucial presidential primary. Clinton took her hawkish line in an interview with ABC television, when she was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Later, Clinton told reporters at a polling station in Conshohocken, outside Philadelphia, that Iran must be made aware of the "high price" it would have to pay for any nuclear strike. If Iran were so "reckless to use them against the United States or an ally in a way that would destablize the world, they would have to take the consequences," she said. The New York senator said as president, she would first do whatever she could to prevent Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons in the first place. Clinton's tough talk came as she was trying to portray Obama, a first-term senator, as too inexperienced to shoulder the heavy responsibilities of the US president and commander in chief of the armed forces. But he said Tehran needed to know he would also respond forcefully to any such attack, but took issue with Clinton's approach. "I think that one of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of, you know, talk. Using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling." Implying that Clinton was now using national security arguments for political advantage, the Obama campaign pointed out that she declined in a debate last October to speculate on such military action. But the former first lady denied her remarks were politically motivated. "Iran is feeling quite powerful, they have been empowered by the actions of the last seven years and they must know there are lines that the world will not let them cross," Clinton said. The State Department would not comment on Clinton's remarks, in line with its policy of keeping out of partisan politics, but deputy spokesman Tom Casey pledged Washington would pursue a peaceful path out of the nuclear showdown with Iran. "Our approach on this is to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon so that no one will ever be faced with the scenario of Iran being able to threaten its use or use it against any neighboring state." Obama's camp Monday accused Clinton of trying to scare voters, as she rocked their White House race with a dark campaign ad featuring images of Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden. The ad uses pictures of Pearl Harbor, bin Laden and the devastating 2005 hurricane that swamped New Orleans, mirroring the "3:00 am phone call" spot credited with helping Clinton to win in Texas and Ohio last month. "You need to be ready for anything -- especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis," the male narrator intones. "Who do you think has what it takes?" Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions. Both call for diplomacy, but Obama has gone further, renewing a promise of "direct talks" at a leaders' level with Tehran and others the United States regards as foes, at a candidate debate here last week. Iran should be presented with "carrots and sticks," the Illinois senator said, while stressing "they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 I'm not denying that she made those remarks but let's also remember that Obama is guilty of what he is accusing her of over attacking a nation...whether it is with military, bombs. Plus, we have seen throughout history nations attacking a nation in retaliation of that nation bombing their ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 When did he say he would obliterate a nation? That woman scares me, and if anyone wants to look the other way while she says that stuff.... Go right ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 And Obama scares me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted April 23, 2008 Members Share Posted April 23, 2008 So, what do we do then? Let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.