Barack Obama Pakistan Comments, Talk Radio Reaction
BARACK'S BLANK CHECK
No Matter How Foolish He Appears, Libtalk's Got His Back
Is there anything Barack Obama could say or do that would provoke criticism from the nation's libtalkers? So far, it appears he's been given a blank check.
What if he kicked puppies? Would that suddenly become a great idea as well?
With the Illinois senator and presidential hopeful suddenly choosing to take an ultra- hawkish position in dealing with international terrorism, one might expect so-called "progressive" talkers to object. Given the poor general reception for Obama's assertion that invading Pakistan could be an option in his potential administration, support from this camp seems all the more amazing.
Never mind the fact that Obama clearly hadn't thought through his stance that many see as horribly naive; libtalkers Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow both gave on-air support for his statement.
From Schultz's Wednesday show:
Subsequently, one caller said Obama's statement had created a "tipping point" where she has now decided to firmly back the senator's presidential run. "Karen" said that while invading Iraq was a mistake, Pakistan was instead the place to send American troops.
Later, other callers disagreed and were surprised by talk of invading Pakistan. Interestingly, that put them in the same position as Rush Limbaugh. Maybe these folks are listening to the wrong talk show!
During Rachel Maddow's Air America Radio show Wednesday evening, the host had considerably less to say about Obama's latest flap, but threw her full support behind him:
Here's a question: are libtalkers ever allowed to stray from party- line talking points, even for a moment? What does a position as ill- considered as this do for their credibility?
FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: the legal battle between Howie Carr and Entercom gets even nastier. Was the Boston Herald conspiring with Carr to damage the company?
Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.
Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again to recent donors!
Technorati tags: talk radio obama obama pakistan rachel maddow ed schultz air america radio obama campaign
Images: RushLimbaugh.com
No Matter How Foolish He Appears, Libtalk's Got His Back
Is there anything Barack Obama could say or do that would provoke criticism from the nation's libtalkers? So far, it appears he's been given a blank check.
What if he kicked puppies? Would that suddenly become a great idea as well?With the Illinois senator and presidential hopeful suddenly choosing to take an ultra- hawkish position in dealing with international terrorism, one might expect so-called "progressive" talkers to object. Given the poor general reception for Obama's assertion that invading Pakistan could be an option in his potential administration, support from this camp seems all the more amazing.
Never mind the fact that Obama clearly hadn't thought through his stance that many see as horribly naive; libtalkers Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow both gave on-air support for his statement.
From Schultz's Wednesday show:
SCHULTZ: “This is what he has not said in the past. He’s saying today that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted. That’s called an invasion. The comments are an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naïve. Man, there isn’t anything naïve about this.
We’re getting a lot of response via email and hits on the web site and many of you say ‘yeah, way to go Barack!’Obama warned Pakistani President General Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under the Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a US troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid."
Subsequently, one caller said Obama's statement had created a "tipping point" where she has now decided to firmly back the senator's presidential run. "Karen" said that while invading Iraq was a mistake, Pakistan was instead the place to send American troops.
Later, other callers disagreed and were surprised by talk of invading Pakistan. Interestingly, that put them in the same position as Rush Limbaugh. Maybe these folks are listening to the wrong talk show!
During Rachel Maddow's Air America Radio show Wednesday evening, the host had considerably less to say about Obama's latest flap, but threw her full support behind him:
MADDOW: “Did you see Barack Obama’s speech on terrorism today? I think it’s his best campaign move yet.”
[...]
“I’m all for actually fighting al-Qaeda like literally actually going after the exact people who attacked us on 9-11.”
Here's a question: are libtalkers ever allowed to stray from party- line talking points, even for a moment? What does a position as ill- considered as this do for their credibility?
FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: the legal battle between Howie Carr and Entercom gets even nastier. Was the Boston Herald conspiring with Carr to damage the company?
Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.
Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again to recent donors!
Technorati tags: talk radio obama obama pakistan rachel maddow ed schultz air america radio obama campaign
Images: RushLimbaugh.com
published by Brian Maloney at
01:29
4 Comments:
hack Maloney:
Here's a question: are libtalkers ever allowed to stray from party- line talking points, even for a moment?
PROJECTION
Listen to mike malloy, he trashes Democrats as much as Republicans, as do other hosts, including myself.
You are projecting, Right wing radio are not only talking point hacks, they actually meet once a moinths for their talking points at the White House.
You are projecting................
By
Minister of Propaganda, at 02 August, 2007 09:33
Of corse the idea is not perfect, the strategic area of the terrorists and Pakistan having to cooperate but again this is an orchestrated attack on any Democratic candidate, another RNC talking point, the Republicans are essentially arguing "stop Al Queda from flourishing, no WAY"!! The GOP NEEDS AL QUEDA Why they want to eliminate the enemy that keeps them in the Middle East?
Only a fool does not see the GOP motives.......
By
Minister of Propaganda, at 02 August, 2007 09:44
It is very interesting, Brian, that you are hawkish where it is senseless and dovish when hawkishness is needed. Then again, you are a typical GOP supporter with a "Through The Looking Glass" mentality that see things exactly opposite of how it really is so why am i surpised?
In case you need a flashing neon sign to enlighten you, one more sign of the failed Iraq strategy is the largest Sunni faction pulling out of the Iraqi cabinet last night and three more massive car bombs to punctuate that point. A mass grave was found in Diyala province which the military claims was the work of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", though when asked how they determined that they had no answer.
Meanwhile, as all the fingers are being pointed at Iran for arming the insurgents every single briefing from troops in the field are showing that the overwhelming number of "foreign fighters" are Saudis. And yet, we're providing them $20 billion more in military aid. We will now be paying for the explosives that kill our troops but Iraq is the right war and right place to invest our troops as civil war is already underway?
Obama made perfect sense to suggest that, if Pakistan won't deal with the radical elements in the far west province of Waziristan, which butts up against Afghanistan and is a veritable safe haven for Al Qeada... you know, the reals ones that actually attacked us, then we have no choice but to do it ourselves. The Taliban is rebounding, particularly in eastern Afghanistan precisely because Musharraf won't rein in the extremist elements. Quite the contrary, in fact. He's given them virtual autonomy to do whatever the hell they want in the wild west, including providing a safe harbor for Osama and Co. And you oppose Barack's suggestion that saber rattling at these radical elements is the wrong idea?
This is what I love about GOP chickenhawks. You guys have such man crushes on unelected dictators. Musharraf assumed power through a military coup and, as such, Pakistan is one of the most undemocratic nations in Central Asia. And yet, President Bush loves holding hands and spooning with Pervez as if he was a prom date. Kinda like Al Faud and their lovely stroll through the gardens like a teen date. The Saudi's keep their power by sharing power with the Wahabis and, now, Musharraf is doing just that with his fundamentalist extremists. But, in your mind, that's okay, right? Now, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's theofascists are strolling in the high clover of the high mountains of Pakistan with impunity, asserting control over a vast swath of Afghanistan and Pakistan with no fear that anyone, not Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia, and, most certainly, not President Bush, will do anything about it.
Brian, in your blind partisan support of this administration, you spit on the graves of the dead of 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan. You really have no shame, do you?
By
Dave Carroll, at 02 August, 2007 12:03
Where is the "blank check"??
Can you provide a quote, showing how whatever he advocated, is a blank check? Here is some information from the Washington Post:
"Much of Obama's speech yesterday focused on steps designed to reinvigorate U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism, but the most noteworthy proposals dealt with military actions. Obama said he would deploy at least two more brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- to Afghanistan to combat what he said is the growing Taliban influence there while sending the Afghan government an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary aid.
But he said he would tie U.S. military aid to Pakistan to that country's success in closing down terrorist training camps, in blocking the Taliban from using its territory as a staging ground for attacks on Afghanistan and in getting rid of foreign fighters.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Do you agree with that position? If not, I guess you are more than happy to allow AL Qaeda a safe harbor in Pakistan.
I think most people in the country would support us taking action to kill Bin Laden and other "high-value terrorist targets". He said he'd give Pakistan the opportunity to take them out, but if they choose not to, we would act.
Where is your argument with that as a policy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html?sub=AR
By
Ezsuds, at 02 August, 2007 19:13
Post a Comment
<< Home