More important than who gets credit, or "The Photo"....

jmc wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

AspenValley wrote:
In the micro or macro sense? For the past 10 years, in the micro sense, Pakistan has been quite publicly a key player in the so-called war on terror. They've provided military support, have turned over quite a number of suspected terrorist to U.S. authorities and have provided a jumping off space for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

In the macro sense, Pakistan as a nuclear power and strategic geography is a key player in the balance of power, particularly as it involves China and Russia.

I guess my question at this point is what now with Pakistan? Is it possible for us to pretend we don't kow they knew that Osama bin Laden was safe within their borders? Is it advisable?

Very good...I always knew you were the smart one on the left...it's too bad you brain is polluted with the feminism and liberalism...

So do you think it was appropriate for us to conduct military action in this sovereign company - heck we can't even enter into a foreign embassy on US terrority..

So YOU are respecting "international" law. You are a partition hack, whatever promotes your "part interests" HACK is the term. No foundation in any credible political ethics. Loser.

I know you would accept another country to fly their helicopters into the USA and attack a compound - you're a freakin' communist too. I know it's hard to believe it...but everyday America is attacked on the southern borders and we do nothing....I can understand why you are confused...because our own government allows the attack...so why not conduct operations over Pakistan.... really, it's no difference...

jmc wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

jmc wrote:

residenttroll wrote: How much money will Obama spend to keep the photo sequestered? I think Obama is saving the photo for the next WAG THE DOG episode.

About nothing, you are concerned about a few $ , what an ass!

yeah, and you can kiss mine......

Watch, the photo will be released at the opportune time.... come on Obama release that photo...with your collegel transcripts too.

Just glad I am not you. What a losing pessimist. We did something good , get over your partisan crap., it isn't working.

Funny I was saying the same thing years ago when we got Saddam Hussein. ...and the libtards didn't get over their partisan crap.

AspenValley wrote: Comparing Nixon's tapes to Obama's PRIVATE records is bogus as hell and you know it. Trying to cover up crimes committed in office and refusing to participate in a fishing expedition into one's personal life and past are two very different things. Unless you're suggesting Obama is hiding something criminal? In which case I'll move you from the category of "Beguilingly Batty" on the topic and into the category of "Malevolentaly Obsessed".

Tell me AV, what do you think the chances would have been for Obama to be selected as the next president if it had come out before the election that he had proclaimed himself to be a citizen of another nation as an adult. It would not have made any difference to the progressive base, but what of the independents who decide elections? What impact would that information have on his ability to be reelected in 2012? Criminal? No, I am not suggesting that the documents are being suppressed to hide criminal activity. I'm suggesting that they are being suppressed because they would have a definite impact upon his electability if disclosed. And while you may believe that it is a private matter for a presidential candidate, or a president, to have declared allegiance to a foreign nation as an adult, I don't share that same belief. I don't give a hoot about whether Obama was on the verge of being kicked out because of his grades or he was a straight 'A' student - but I do care about his declarations as to his own citizenship as an adult - which is something those admission forms would shed light on and remains a distinct possibility as to why the request for them is always met with a legal challenge. I'm not saying he did, I'm not saying he didn't - I'm saying I would like to see the forms so that the matter becomes one of knowledge rather than one of speculation and belief.

I would like to know who it was that was living in Connecticut, and when, that applied for a SSN for him since that is the state in which the request would have been received in order for his SSN to start with O42 - especially since that number was previously issued to someone else. I would like to know how it is that Obama can get a SSN issued out of Connecticut between 1977 and 1979 when he is living and working in Hawaii.

Obama himself said it best. The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide. So why the attempts to hide the documents? What do they contain that he is unwilling to disclose?

I'm an independent.

And I have an instinctive dislike and suspicion of the practice of smearing another person's character based on "what if's" And an even stronger dislike for the practice of witch hunting a la Ken Starr. The idea that if you force a political figure to give up more and more information until you can find something to pounce on and pronounce as felonious disqualification is really, really repugnant to me. I wouldn't wish it on Michelle Bachman.

So if some hypothetical political party kept pressuring and fishing and digging until they finally forced a candidate of another political party into a place where they revealed something potentially embarrassing, I'd probably have more negative feelings towards the party responsible for the harrassing than for the embarassed politician, assuming the "offense" wasn't involving some serious criminality.

So in answer to your question, I think I'd be very careful of playing that game because it can definitely backfire.