The Republican candidates have attacked Barrack Obama for threatening to attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, saying his view was "naive". Is this as naive as saying that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq? Or that we would only need a small military force to secure Iraq? Or to disband the police and military in Iraq? Or to say that oil revenues would pay for the war? Or to say that the insurgency was in it's last throes? Or to think a troop surge would make any difference in the political discord in Iraq?
Also, I seem to remember a certain President Bush saying any country, like Afghanistan, that harbored terrorists was the enemy. But, now it is okay for Pakistan to harbor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and we should do nothing? What ever happened to those macho Bush threats? The only people who are naive are the ones who voted to reelect these spin-doctor hypocrites.
No comments:
Post a Comment