Uh, he wasn't even allowed to vote because he wasn't in the senate yet? Its sort of like what I say to all the touts that tell me they went 85% last year. Its easy to pick the winner after the game is played. He didn't vote for or against because he didn't vote at all.
Are you saying we should've invaded Pakistan instead? Most of those responsible where in Pakistan so how do you propose to get those responsible for 9/11?
Here is a speech Obama gave on 2002-10-02, quite a few months prior to Iraq... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech He wasn't in the position to vote against the war (though Congress never really declared War), but he made a very public statement prior to the war and let his position be known.
That scares me even more. At a time when America is still reeling from being attacked on it's own turf, a time when Americans are rallying to defeat an unseen enemy, this SOB is making anti war speeches to a bunch of idiots in a drug induced haze.
Definitely not. We should've used the resources dedicated in Iraq to Afghanistan. (Nothing new, you and I have debated this many times ). Had we done that instead of outsourcing to local warlords who's loyalties changes with the highest bidder, Bin Laden probably wouldn't have escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora.
It seems he was more lucid than many of our so called leaders, but that troubles you? You want the guy with his finger on the red and shiny button to be moved by emotion rather than reason? It seems to me that making the right decision in the heat of the moment is something we should want in a leader. B Hussein Obama was on the side of history when it was uncommon and, in some circles, unpopular.
You frighten way too easily, mon ami. If you had bothered to read it you would have noticed that it is not an anti-war speech at all, he advocates war when it is necessary. It's an anti stupid war speech. Iraq was a stupid war against the wrong friggin' enemy and you know it. Obama was right and you are still wrong.
I don't think we need to replace one invasion with another, necessarily, and fanatic brings up a good point. We dropped the ball and allowed bin Laden to slip through our hands and more focus on that task may have improved the outcome. In any case, it should be our foremost goal to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. Musharraf was not in adequate control of his country and if push comes to shove, I'd chose Pakistan over Iraq. I wouldn't be interested in toppling the government of Pakistan, but if anyone stands between us and justice, should we relent and just say 'oh well'? We knew who was responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on US soil and nothing should bar us from bringing those responsible parties to justice. Would the world fault us? No more than they've faulted us for Iraq. Do you really think Pakistan would inhibit us? I'm really surprised that anyone who so fully bought into Bush's war on terror and those nations that harbor terrorists would shrink at the thought of standing up to Pakistan.
I did read it and all I could think was who gives a crap about what some wet behind the ears community organizer speaking to a bunch of over the hill hippies has to say?
Who cares if he showed uncommon judgment? Last I checked, he's running for the office of President, which means discerning voters should care what B Hussein Obama has to say. That may not include you, SabanFan, I'm not sure what drives your vote.
