Those Wacky Democrats
Did anyone catch the Democratic party debate on ABC the other day?
The moderator, Charlie Gibson, asked Obama if he was President, would he send tropps into Pakistan if we had specific intel that Bin Laden was hiding there (without obtaining approval of the Pakistani government to cross their border). Obama replied that if he had he had credible intelligence on the location of Bin Laden he would in fact send troops into Pakistan.
Gibson then made a comment on that type of action being the same policy as the Bush Doctrine regarding taking action against terrorists and those that support terrorists. Obama, obviously trapped with that comment, insisted that those actions are not the same. Meanwhile, the deeper he got into his answer the more it mirrored our current administrations policy on terrorists.
This is why I can't stand listening to the Democrats. Everything they say is convoluted doublespeak.
Hillary's answer also provided some insight. Her response would be to send some missiles into Pakistan and then call the Pakistani government before they impacted. Gee, that sounds just like Bill Clinton's attempt to take down Bin Laden by launching a few Tomahawk missiles and hoping for the best. We saw how well that worked.
I really tried to watch the Democratic candidates debate. But I couldn't take all of that doublespeak.
Not that the Republicans were that much better. I'm amazed how much all of the candidates can talk and still never answer the question directed at them in the first place.
I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in the primaries, and there are only 4 weeks until decision time. There are things I like about Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, and Rudy, but none of them have won me over. I like some things about John McCain as well, but with his stance on immigration there is no way that he is going to get my vote.
|
Linear Mode
