[DaveyJones]

This says it all. Like Hitler campaigning for .......



Hamas holds no grudges apparently against Barack Obama for his aversion to meeting with them. Carl Cameron reports:

During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision. “We don’t mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidat

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by DaveyJones

"...he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,”

Would that be such a bad thing??

[DaveyJones]

Originally Posted by ChrisJones

Would that be such a bad thing??

He's talking about JFK and Obama is NOT JFK.
Obama also supports J. Carter for meeting with the Hamas and thats OK too?

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by DaveyJones

"...he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,”

Originally Posted by ChrisJones

Would that be such a bad thing??

For some , yes ! .
Read it carefully , its so --anti-American !! >f

[linskyjack]

Davey Jones, give up on the attempted character assassination. It has become so banal.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Originally Posted by DaveyJones

"...he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,”



For some , yes ! .
Read it carefully , its so --anti-American !! >f

[iltos]

Originally Posted by DaveyJones

“We don’t mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidat

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Originally Posted by DaveyJones

"...he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,”



For some , yes ! .
Read it carefully , its so --anti-American !! >f

yeppers....that pretty much sums up the divide on foreign policy
you either believe america can lead a diverse world by example, or that it must struggle against the world, making the example reassembling the world in its image.

[WarC]

"We don’t mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance..."

Translation:

"We like Obama because, judging from his past comments, speeches, and party affiliation, he appears less likely to intervene in the Mid East and/or aid Israel in our ongoing struggle against them."

Don't let a member of a terrorist organization like Hamas dupe you into thinking he actually admires a great and strong American president. On the contrary, they want a President who runs on a platform of non-intervention so that their own political agenda can go forward unimpeded. He simply chose honeyed words to say it. Its illogical to think that a sworn enemy could wish us well in such a manner, unless it directly benefits him. The case could realistically be made that Obama or Clinton in the white house would, at face value, be a "good" thing for our enemies...And thats a perception that Democrats have created themselves with their stances on foreign policy issues since Bush took office. Its their own creation, and something they have to address.

The Democratic version of "War on Terror" is the Battle of Mogadishu, and the cruise missile strikes of 1998. Weak, temporary actions which ended in failure and only emboldened our enemies. They are the party of "timetables for withdrawal" and Harry "This war is lost" Reid.

The Republican version of "War on Terror" are the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; huge, concentrated, and effective ongoing military actions which severely test and deplete our enemies.

I know who I'd want to be occupying the office of President were I an Islamonut...And it wouldn't be John McCain!

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by WarC

"We don’t mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance..."

Translation:

"We like Obama because, judging from his past comments, speeches, and party affiliation, he appears less likely to intervene in the Mid East and/or aid Israel in our ongoing struggle against them."

Don't let a member of a terrorist organization like Hamas dupe you into thinking he actually admires a great and strong American president. On the contrary, they want a President who runs on a platform of non-intervention so that their own political agenda can go forward unimpeded. He simply chose honeyed words to say it. Its illogical to think that a sworn enemy could wish us well in such a manner, unless it directly benefits him. The case could realistically be made that Obama or Clinton in the white house would, at face value, be a "good" thing for our enemies...And thats a perception that Democrats have created themselves with their stances on foreign policy issues since Bush took office. Its their own creation, and something they have to address.

The Democratic version of "War on Terror" is the Battle of Mogadishu, and the cruise missile strikes of 1998. Weak, temporary actions which ended in failure and only emboldened our enemies. They are the party of "timetables for withdrawal" and Harry "This war is lost" Reid.

The Republican version of "War on Terror" are the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; huge, concentrated, and effective ongoing military actions which severely test and deplete our enemies.

I know who I'd want to be occupying the office of President were I an Islamonut...And it wouldn't be John McCain!

[Fidelista]

[quote=WarC;5797972
The Republican version of "War on Terror" are the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; huge, concentrated, and effective ongoing military actions which severely test and deplete our enemies.

I know who I'd want to be occupying the office of President were I an Islamonut...And it wouldn't be John McCain![/QUOTE]
If I were a OB Laden , a terrorist , and wanted to deplete Americas resources , influence in the world , and defeat her in the long term --I would promote McCain !. Bush has been a boon to AQ , why change course ?.
Keep in mind , terrorists never had the ability to inflict such damage -- militarly --economically -- or politically , without our help .
Their strategic plan has been much underestimated IMO ---smart in evil way , very smart . How else to create a situation where a midget can destroy a giant .
A few hundred nuts , and look they have done . Caused us to shoot ourselves in both feet!. I have always believed that was plan , and they have even stated it .
We have killed terrorists , true , but created many more , around the world -- asia --africa --all over the globe . We are growing them much faster than we are killing them .
And thats only part of the damage .
We should have went after them , and I still see anything else as working fr them .
I am sure you do not agree , or maybe do not understand what I am saying , but as a terrorist , I would support the status quo -- support Bush policy --IE McCain .
Its working so far . >f

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by iltos

yeppers....that pretty much sums up the divide on foreign policy
you either believe america can lead a diverse world by example, or that it must struggle against the world, making the example reassembling the world in its image.

Which example would that be?