Political Punch

The Commander Guy, al Qaeda is known to be in 65 countries (not just caves in Pakistan). And the al Qaeda wannabes are in every country -- yes, even right here in the United States. There are over 1 Billion Muslims around the world. If just 5% of these are extremists, that is 50 million jihadists. Then when you take into account the non-Muslim supporters, that could bring that total to 60-70 million worldwide.

Now then, BKMC, you obviously do not understand what drives these extremists. They are so dedicated to their idea of a worldwide caliphate, that they are willing to die for their cause. You cannot negotiate with these people. That would be like negotiating with a lion. You will just end up being his latest meal. Just imagine if the afore mentioned 60-70 million jihadists and supporters were to split up into cells of 6-7, that would be 10 million cells spread throughout the world. Also imagine if some of these cells obtained WMDs.

We cannot afford to just ignore what is really happening around the world. The existence of Western Civilization IS on the line!

JD
So it is Western Civilization vs. terrorist living in caves in Pakistan. And you think the people in the caves are gonna take over the world?

Come on man. This is seriously lame.

james denley, disagree with you that there are two options: the Western Civilization fights to survive or be dominated by terrorists. Life cannot be summurized in black and white. No there is a third option which is the pacific co-existance between cultures and civilizations. That is the only viabe option because the Western civilization cannot and will not be able to kill the rest of the civilizations. Difference is a strenght and not a weakness. Irak had nothing to do with AlQaeda before the Bush-Cheney-McCain-Hillary's war started.

Both Obama and Clinton have taken inconsistent stands and voting in respect to the Iraq war. Obama stated in 2004 that he didn't know if he would have voted for or against the war if he would have had the opportunity. If you check his voting records, he indeed did vote for war funding when given the opportunity. The Iraq war has been a tragedy for 4,000 young Americans and 600,000 of the Iraq population. Given the demographics before the war with over 50% of the population being under 18, it's fair to assert that the majority of the 600,000 were children. I think the Iraq tragedy has been politically exploited enough by both democratic candidates and the pundits. I want to hear about viable exit strategies and/or a viable humanitarian based stay.

We're in the MIDDLE of a WAR and Albright is "aiding and abetting the enemy". Her words will be trumpeted around the world by America's enemies - from AL Quaida to Iran. She's guilty of a lot more than hyperbole. Words like hers used to be considered treason. Why don't you just come out and root for the other side, Madeline??!!-- Posted by petee Mar 28, 2008 12:56:41 A. How did you find your way here, petee? Did you forget your meds again?

I think Secretary Albright is only partially correct. Clearly, the greatest foreign policy disaster in American History is the election of an uncurious, ignorant and delusional third-rate political marionette--- George W. Bush to the highest office in the United States. His election has shown the world what wise people have long known: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be." <<

The Commander Guy, what price would you say is too high to continue fighting for the survival of Western Civilization? Especially when there are just two options: We die or the terrorists and their ideology died!

Bush should have listened to Powell.

As it is, Bush has been responsible for
as many deaths in Iraq as Saddam. Not to mention the one million refugees who
have fled Iraq.

The Republicans chose the wrong means to the end. They continue to justify it
with lies, lies and more lies. So much
for businessmen in the White House.

JD says "Calling the invasion of Iraq a disaster, right now, is just as shortsighted as ....."

The invasion of Iraq is a disaster. Do you need the 3 trillion reasons listed?

Should be role model.

The US invasion of Iraq "is going to go down in hstory as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy?"

1. Regime change in Iraq;
2. Nine months after the invasion of Iraq, Col. Moammar al-Ghadafi, the leader of Libya, confirmed his commitment to disclose and dismantle all of Libya's WMD programs;
3. Elections in Iraq;
4. Iraqi Constitution adopted and ratified;
5. Iraqi Parliament created and convenes;
6. Iraqi Army controls 1/3 of the country;
7. Iraqi Army leads, but does not control, 1/3 of the country;
8. Al Qaeda declares Iraq as their central battleground on their jihad against Western Civilization;
9. Al Qaeda is on the run.

Certainly sounds like a fairly sound foreign policy to me. And IF Iraq becomes a thriving democracy and a role mode for its neighbors; and IF Israel and Palestine can formulate and implement a two-state solution to their crisis, then the invasion of Iraq will be reviewed as a resounding success!

Calling the invasion of Iraq a disaster, right now, is just as shortsighted as calling the Battle of Iraq a failure and a defeat.

Lets see the worse Secretary of State in History who help China get rocket technology and NK get the atomic bomb is saying something about history. She is a disgrace what she did is treasonous!

Some souls might be inclined to say she ain't but Half-Bright. So now a few more pearls of wisdom drop from the jowls of the lady who thought she could bring peace to the Middle East by working her feminine wiles on Yassar Arafat. She probably just thinks Saddam could have been won over with another autographed basketball.

Nice job of selective quoting. Mr. Tapper.

Albright did not say the disaster in Iraq is a fait accompli, she said she was "afraid Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy."

A seemingly slight, but significant difference in meaning. Wonder why you chose to omit it?

Heck of a job, Bushie.

And thanks alot Hillary.

Madeline Albright was behind what could have been an even worse foreign policy disaster. Her pushing for the bombing of Serbia alienated the US in Eastern Europe and precipitated a standoff with Russia that could have led to war. And look at the results. It's a worse mess than ever in the Balkans.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Jake - Obama had his 15 minutes of fame for the 2002 speech. But he's done nothing since that Hillary hasn't done - so why shouldn't Albright back Hillary?

Hillary has not read the NIE on Irak and has voted for the Irak resolution to go to war. Her case is even worse than WBush's. That is a demonstration of lack of leadership and judgement. Nominating Hillary is a risk DEM cannot take. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.

"The U.S. should have listened to the French. It's the sad truth"

What about: they should have listened to Obama, who rather accurately predicted the outcome and failure of this war in his 2002 speech?

The U.S. should have listened to the French. It's the sad truth.

What foreign policy disaster did former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger cover up when he stole and destroyed highly classified documents from the National Archives (purportedly so he could prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission)? According to White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, the documents were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism. Hillary’s attack on Iraq policy is a typical Clinton tactic of attack and distraction to remove the public eye from some embarrassment (perhaps Hillary getting caught in her Bosnia lie).

You can imagine what punishment a Bush administration official would have received – Berger got probation and a fine. Now he’s back as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton. This is just another example of the pervasive sleaze and corruption inherent in any Clinton dministration. Clinton supporters not only ignored the corruption, they reveled in the Clintons’ ability, with the complicity and assistance of the media, to remain unaccountable for their corrupt conduct.

It will go down as the end of Western Civilization - because it proved to all our enemies that liberalism is incapable of a foreign policy that recognizes the real world. It proved that terrorism works. The real enemies of Western Civilization are the cowards and fools like Albright - and Obama.

Albright (not so bright) is a traitor but, what else would we expect from a socialist putz?

Yes there are alot of people who oppose the continuation of the war that support Hilary Clinton!
gerry

The idea that the Senate voted for anything other than war is simply ridiculous. The name of the resolution was Authorization for Use of Military Force. It specifically granted Bush unilateral authority to attack Iraq, without returning to Congress for further authorization. Albright is right that it's the greatest disaster in American foreign policy, ever. Too bad she's supporting a candidate who voted for the war, and lies about it today.

Albright is right, i feel in the end she will switch to Barack.

Albright didn't want to risk being called a Judas or traitor by the likes of Carville and the other jackals in the Clinton campaign.

It takes guts to break away from the Clintons. They take all this very personally. It's about them, not the ideas involved.

sparklewdc -

The information on WMD's ETC that I provided were from the Clinton administration. Before 2000.

Perhaps some of you more knowledgeable people would like to serve your country by going to work for the NSA,CIA or FBI?Perhaps your pertinent info would be passed up the chain of command and eventually land on the President's Desk. Perhaps the President would give an honest presentation of the info to Congress..? Anything is possible when you don't have the power and the access to the source of the original information. Have you forgotten that Gen Colin Powell told the UN that Iraq had WMDs? He was a pawn in the plan just like 77 Senators were. What made Obama so sure of himself?? Maybe he had better sources of information or maybe he took a chance that he was right? The fact of the matter is that was 2002, this is 2008 and we need to get out. Clinton can do it, McCain will not. Dems need to win in Nov no matter what. Obama is unelectable. Clinton/Obama '08

Before you go blasting Hillary Clinton you should be properly educated then you will know why Sen Clinton,Sen John Kerry, Sen Joe Biden, Sen Tom Daschle, Sen Chris Dodd, Sen Max Cleland, Sen Jay Rockefeller, Sen John Edwards and 21 other DEMOCRATIC Senators voted for the war initiative and WHY Sec Albright supports Hillary Clinton..
.................................

We're in the MIDDLE of a WAR and Albright is "aiding and abetting the enemy". Her words will be trumpeted around the world by America's enemies - from AL Quaida to Iran. She's guilty of a lot more than hyperbole. Words like hers used to be considered treason. Why don't you just come out and root for the other side, Madeline??!!

"Please, Albright is supporting Hillary. How come she did not support Obama, if Albright believes the war was such a mistake!?

Give me a break. You cannot have it both ways."

So, then using that standard, it is NOT okay for Obama to have the support of Senators Kerry, Dodd, Daschel and Rockefeller who voted the same way as Hillary? You're right, you cannot have it both ways...unless you are supporting Obama.

And who could forget this one:

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

Guess Albright forgot about that one too.

Both Democrat candidates will say ANYTHING just to get elected.

Please, Albright is supporting Hillary. How come she did not support Obama, if Albright believes the war was such a mistake!?

Give me a break. You cannot have it both ways.

This is not going to take away from Hillary's sniper fire statements which she has said more than once. How could Hillary vote for any war. She is to busy running for Office to read the NIE. seems to me she has spent most of his time carpetbagging to run as senator by moving to chappaqua at the last period of elegibility. Or writing books. It seems to me something comes out about Hillary Clinton and "The Family" and "The Foundation" and it should be looked at but instead something is put out about Wright and she gets a free ride It is realy getting old. (The Corrected Remix.)

"Albright could not be immediately reached for comment on why she's supporting the Democratic presidential candidate who voted for "the greatest disaster in American foreign policy" over one who opposed it."

Hillary did not only VOTE for it. She has been one the most hawkish Dems throughout her Senate career in stressing a military solution for our diplomatic conflicts with Iraq. She was a cheerleader of this war, one of its most strident supporters.

Albrights OPINIONS are about as significant as teats on a bull. I guess she doen't recall her statements own statements from 1998?

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

Along with this one from the same link:

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

So I ask this question Albright, Who's information got us into Iraq?

It's completely disingenuous to keep insisting that he opposed it. It's comparing apples to oranges since he did not have the responsibility to make a vote one way or another.

And I find it a bit disturbing to continue this notion of "opposition" to the war since during his time in the Senate, his voting record was nearly IDENTICAL to that of Clinton on all votes related to Iraq (they differed on 1 out of 85). What kind of conviction is that?

Perhaps she is supporting Hillary because this election is not a one issue contest. And even if it were, perhaps she is supporting Clinton because she believes Clinton has a better vision for withdrawing from Iraq than her opponent.