Edwards: I'd invade Pakistan too

Well he won't be heading the charge. It might mess up his hair...

WASHINGTON: Criticising the Bush administration for its counter-terrorism policies, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards said he would invade Pakistan to eradicate terror cells if there were actionable intelligence and the US-ally refuses to act.

This is funny, prior to the last US election, muslims were urging voters to vote democrat. Soon they will be urging US voters to vote Republican.

I wonder who Naseem would have us vote for this time?

Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards said he would invade Pakistan to eradicate terror cells if there were actionable intelligence and the US-ally refuses to act.

Oh, so with elections not quite going his way, 'war on terror' is not a bumber sticker any more, huh? 'Actionable intelligence' can be different to different people. So, you see, it is all subjective. 'Actionable intelligence' is what John Edwards, wants it to be. What is certain is that Edwards is sure to chase the ambulances resulting from 'actionable intelligence'. But still, 'actionable intelligence' is the catch phrase the ambulance-chaser slipped into his bold claims of invasion.
Nice try, Johnny!

Greetings:

I'm surprised Pace University (home of the Koran in the toilet) hasn't charged him with hate speech.

I wonder who Naseem would have us vote for this time?
Posted by: duh_swami

Deep down inside they know Dubya's got their backs.. paid for by the SOWdis. Republican... Shmepublican... Democrat... Shmemocrat...

They all like the money... I don't care how militant this Edwards character spouts. He's getting desperate..

If he were President he wouldn't invade a thing.. he's a Liberal Trial Lawyer. Nuff said.

Or again, the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.

Secretarian violence in Iraq is down:

* Gunshots to the back of the head are still categorized as secretarian violence.
* Gunshots to the front of the head are now categorized as criminal violence.
* Sunni-on-Sunni violence no longer counts.
* Shia-on-Shia violence no longer counts.
* Car bombs no longer count.

Car bombs have been taken off of the table because:

"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory,"
-President Bush

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, Petraeus’ ten-year timeline gets Hillary off the hook.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466_pf.html

"Actionable intelligence" is only defined that way after the fact, usually a successful attack.

Take action before an attack takes place (isn't that called preventive war or a preemptive strike?) and John Edwards will call you a warmonger or blame you for "America's poor standing all over the world". He'll ask why didn't we "work with our ally, Pakistan"?

Invade Pakistan and you'll hear how we cannot "occupy" a foreign nation.

Give it up, Johnny. Go back to suing doctors and having supernatural experiences in front of a jury. You'll still be doing harm to America, but at least it will be on a smaller scale.

There is not one untrue statement in what John Edwards said. We should not be offering Pakistan financial support while they are harboring OBL. We should not be afraid to go get OBL if the Pakistanis won't. There is no way that OBL should be allowed to continue to breathe air after what he has done to U.S. citizens and other infidels around the world.

I wouldn't scorn our "leaders" when they take even the slightest timid steps in the right direction, simply out of party loyalty. If Tancredo and Edwards agree on this, that's good news for all of us.

Absolutely won't take any action against Iran where bin Laden is, but will invade Pakistan where he is not ... . What a pathetic buffoon!
Rudy is our only hope. Folks, visit JoinRudy2008.com.
Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

The official reason given and the ones that most Americans agreed with , for the war on Iraq was
a. Iraq has nuclear weapons
b. Iraq is training terrorists. Al Qaeda is in Iraq

Pakistan does have Nuclear weapons. Pakistan does have terrorist training camps. Its amusing to see the people now jump on anyone else who says war on Pakistan.

The problem is that America doesnt seem to learn that interfering with other countries normally rebounds back on America itself(Interference in Iran/Iraq,Israel/Palestine,Afghanistan and now soon to be Pakistan)

The first qualification for being President of the United States, is to know who has atomic weapons and who doesn't. Evidently Edwards and Obama don't know.

If we think Iraq is a quagmire, can anyone even emagine what Pakistan would be like. We would lose millions trying to occupy that hell hole.

I wouldn't scorn our "leaders" when they take even the slightest timid steps in the right direction, simply out of party loyalty. If Tancredo and Edwards agree on this, that's good news for all of us.

Posted by: special_guest at September 8, 2007 2:02 PM

Coming from someone to whom 'war on terror' is a bumper sticker, Pakistan bravado can be taken with a grain of salt. To be taken seriously, Edwards needs to start by withdrawing his comment about the bumper sticker, with an apology. That is how a sincere person would start.

Message to voters: Get to know your lying, opportunist and corrupt politicians.

Tom Tancredo is a patriotic statesman, who has always stood for America. His record speaks for himself: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com Big difference!

Poor Edwards, trying to convince the electorate he has cahones where those invaluable attributes and common sense are required.

Good luck wuss.

Rudy is our only hope. Folks, visit JoinRudy2008.com.
Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at September 8, 2007 2:05 PM

Sorry but, but Rudy made New York a 'sanctuary city', and went to court to keep it that way TWICE. What next? 'Sanctuary country'? OOppssss.. Bush has already taken care of that. As for Tom Tancredo, his record speaks for himself: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
Case closed!

Edwards would invade Pakistan like President Clinton removed Saddam.

This invade Pak thing is a gimmick, since it's unlikely that we would ever be faced with clear intelligence of an imminent attack or OBL's whereabouts and the Paks would veto a strike, dubious as they may be.
It's a cheap way to make the dems sound resolute. They're not.

If he were President he wouldn't invade a thing.. he's a Liberal Trial Lawyer. Nuff said.
Posted by: Allahfanculo

Edwards reminds me of a Clinton clone. If he went to war in Pakistan, he'd be about as successful as Clinton in Somalia, nil. These Liberal wimpies are only brave enough to beat up their own, such as slick Willy did in Kosovo. I'd give Edwards zero chance of becoming Commander in Chief. Hitlery has a better chance, she's probably tough as nails, lady like. Women have much stronger reason to stand up to these imbecile islamicst, being half a man. But I'm not signing any endorsements here. ;)

As much as I'd like to bash Edwards, we're forgetting OBL's best friend - George Bush. The man who invaded the only secular state in the ME and made it a safe haven for Al-Qeada and Iran. The man who ok'd Pakistan to airlift out over 3000 Taliban and Al-Qeada fighters out of Afghanistan and refused to committ enough troops at Tora Bora to get Bin Laden.

Bin Laden could have never asked for a better ally in promoting Islamic terrorism.

Bush makes all the GOP candidates and even the Democratic look real good.

Women have much stronger reason to stand up to these imbecile islamicst, being half a man. But I'm not signing any endorsements here. ;)

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at September 8, 2007 3:48 PM

Not a woman who pushes her president husband's infedility under the rug. And here is what Billy did to American kids: http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Embracing%20Islam%20selling%20out%20children.htm
Add to that criminal Hsu's crime contribution. Remove the wagging finger and Hillary is Billy in a dress.
Simply put, Hill and Bill are two sides of the same coin.

One would feel better if Democratic candidates, instead of attempting to prove themselves capable of a "muscular" foreign policy by talking of what they would do to Pakistan, to start with opposing the war in Iraq for the only reason that should count: that it squanders American resources, and wastes an opportunity to exploit pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, within the Camp of Islam. Furthermore, the recognition that the ideology of Islam, the Total System of Islam, is not a temporary but a permanent threat to all Infidels, and not one that will be "solved" or "cured" by this or that impressive-sounding "invasion" -- no invasions of any Muslim states are either necessary or desirable, but bombing from the air, to deprive them of certain kinds of weaponry, and efforts to diminish the Money Weapon, to counter campaigns of Da'wa which so far have gone unopposed and, until recently, practically unnoticed, and finally, the halt and reversal of the demographic changes in the Infidel lands that threaten them, in an unprecedented fashion, from within, and inexorably if new measures are not taken that will require a new understanding of what, in order to protect Infidel legal and political institutions, to protect artistic expression and the advancement of science, will be necessary and, if rightly undrstood, be regarded by all fair-minded people as perfectly justified.

Enough talk about getting "tough" in the Bush vein. Give us something we need: an analysis of Islam, its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, and then some concrete measures -- so many of them have been repeatedly laid out here -- beginning with how to pluck a "victory" for the situation in Tarbaby iraq, a "victory" that depends only on seeing things aright, analzing them aright, and then promptly withdrawing based on this new, much harder, less innocent and more ruthless view of things -- as is needed, from here on out.

As much as I'd like to bash Edwards, we're forgetting OBL's best friend - George Bush. The man who invaded the only secular state in the ME and made it a safe haven for Al-Qeada and Iran. The man who ok'd Pakistan to airlift out over 3000 Taliban and Al-Qeada fighters out of Afghanistan and refused to committ enough troops at Tora Bora to get Bin Laden.

Bin Laden could have never asked for a better ally in promoting Islamic terrorism.

Bush makes all the GOP candidates and even the Democratic look real good.

Posted by: waltc at September 8, 2007 4:17 PM

Good points all! Add to that:
- Letting Bin Ladens off after 9/11.
- Blackening pages on Saudi Arabia from 9/11 interim report.
- Increased student's visas to Saudis.
- Increased aid and weapons to Pakistan.
- Making Pakistan, the mother; and Saudi Arabia the father of Islamic terror; allies against terror. Bush protected two terror-sponsoring states, thru the phony 'war on terror'. Wasn;t that clever? As for invading the secular state of Iraq, Bush used his office, tax dollars and American lives to protect his Saudi masters from Saddam. So what if now, Iraq is another terror sate? Again, good points.

John edwards used the term "actionable intelligence" when he advocated an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

And he rails the Bush administration about credibility issues.

Enough talk about getting "tough" in the Bush vein. Give us something we need: an analysis of Islam, its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, and then some concrete measures -- so many of them have been repeatedly laid out here ...

Posted by: Hugh at September 8, 2007 4:28 PM

Tom Tancredo has addressed this in his book: 'In Mortal Danger'. Besides Tom's record on Islam is more than clear, as we know from the demonstrations in Pakistan.

If a group is a threat to American lives, and you shelter that person, then you should not be surprised to experience the full force of American anger.

Therefore, any "sympathetic" person in Pak-hellistan or wherever should wake up tomorrow to the last sound he hears - the whistling of a thermonuclear device dropped on every location, anywhere, that harbors or has ever harbored an enemy of the United States. The world will not shed any tears. Let's just get it over with.

The headline should read,
Edwards to invade Pakistan, force them to see a Doctor regularly. If he has actionable intelligence on anyone skipping appointments or eating donuts, burgers, pizza and such let me tell you, they will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. No dessert for them!

I want that boy to lead the infidel army, on a camel. right into Waziristan!

Go for it, pretty boy! And make sure you don't do it on a bad hair day...

I'd sooner invade Saudi Arabia. It's flat, and it's population is much more concentrated in cities that would be easy to cut off and starve.

I'd sooner invade Saudi Arabia. It's flat, and its population is concentrated in cities we could cut off and starve.

Yeah, he'll invade all right. With an army of hairstylists and make-up artists. He'll wow them all with his fabulousness.

I agree with @alert. If you read through carefully he also said,
We ought to use our tremendous tools - diplomacy, arm sales, trade, foreign aid - to get states to shut down terror cells

He is just talking by saying "actionable intelligence" (AI). As has been said, the term is after the fact not before. As well as the vagueness of the phrase. He had a headache is that AI? The WTC is that AI. It's in the eyes of the beholder. His real action would be what I quoted above. This is because he thinks the enemy can be reasoned with. He like all/most of the Democrats think it is our fault or Bushes fault for terrorism.

Instead of hypothetical battle plans, I'd like to hear some accurate analyses from the candidates on the nature of the threat we face. There's been very little knowledge displayed about the Islamic ideology, its provenance or its principles, and what makes it a threat. I don't expect details on fiqhs or even citations of sources, but there are some concepts, such as the dhimmi, Sharia or Jihad. There is also a connection between those concepts and Islamic polity and our relationship with it.
That way, we won't have situations as in Iraq, where we were surprised to find that circumstances did not necessarily fit our preconceptions, and so didn't turn out as planned.
Oracles don't really foretell the future, they just understand the past.

damn, the democrats are so eager to bomb muslims in other lands but not so eager to stem the tide of hte islamification of the USA. crazy.

Edwards, the all of a sudden tough guy, although I'm sure he doesn't know what he's to be tough against or why. Was that a bumper sticker slogan to show some strength?

Politicians, not only Edwards, all over the west, harp on about the "terrorists", not realizing who or what they are and more importantly, why they are.

It's clucking and plucking for political gains.

They try to come across as tough on terror when terror is not the root problem, not realizing the mother ship is Islam and even more disheartening, I'm sure hardly any of them have tried to find out what Islam is.

Meanwhile, the west slips closer to mortal danger, while the politicians pluck the weeds one at a time. As soon as one weed is plucked, another soon shows up. Even the gardener would know the lawn needs to be treated.

Islam must be dealt with, but first leaders must be educated on this religion from hell. If they all knew the truth, they would soon see it is not really a religion at all, then we could get down to business.

Iraq lies smack dab in the Middle of the Middle East. Like the Hub of a great Wheel. Aircraft of all types within the US Inventory are capapable of hitting targets in every country arround it. It supports the Flanks of Afganistan and places Iran like a peace of Meat in a Sandwich. Carrier Battle groups support both of Iraqs other 2 flanks(Afganistan supports the Third) While creating a 2 front war senario for any Country we may come to grips with.

Iraq is the center of the War. The stratigic rammifications of losing this position would be a disaster. Preserving our Military for some future possible need???? There will not be a future if we run away from the position we are in now.

Islam has been at odd with itself for hundreds of years. It never kept them from uniting from time to time to hack and stab the Infidel. I cannot see where this is anything more than one of those times. Islam will claim Victory no matter how "we" say we leave, and that is all that matters to them. Radical Islam with no check upon it. Geting Armed to the teath with 2-3rd generation Weapon Systems. They may kill each other for a bit. But in the end the "Evil" ones will prevail and it will not take them long.

Throw in a Europe unwilling to even recoginise their own weak position and what defence do we really have left?

We can show some fortitude and deal with Islam from a strong conventional position today or force ourselfs to resort to Tactical and stratigic Nuclear weapons from way off Shore.

The last wager I would ever go all in on would never be one where Islam will kill each other off sufficent to leave the rest of us alone. The Historical period of Islam leaving the Infidel alone is over.

The Headlines on this site alone Scream it.

O'Samma is but one of many screaming at us every day.

The Pakistan terror entity was void of foreign reserve currency on 9-11, in face of the US boycott. President Stupid met with Muslim leaders at the DC Islamic Center on Sept 16, 2001, and then proceeded to ally with Pakistan. Notwithstanding the fact that that entity recognized Taliban at the time, Bush allied with a country whose citizens are using their subsidized wealth to murder US soldiers in Afghanistan. One year ago, Bush sanctioned Pakistan deals with Taliban, and indulged Taliban harborage.

As for the 2001-2 war, Bush accepted armistice agreements with the most virulent sectors of the enemy and set up a phony democracy, whose voters elected such characters as the dirtbag who conducted the destruction of the ancient Buddhas.

The conflict in Afghanistan isn't NATO v terrorists; it is Pakistan v US, with US paying Pakistan's bills.

Had Bush any common sense, Pakistan would have long broken up into 4 sectors, and Punjabis would be at war with Pashto and Waziri sub-humans.

If the Surgeon does not know "the actionable intelligence" even then the 'surgery 'can be done on the basis of'presumed diagnosis'. Its called 'Expolratory Laprotomy'. i.e. open the 'pandora's box ( abdomen-Pakistan !! )', see the faults etc.in-side ,on site and remove them one by one carefully and close back the 'box'!! It has to be done very carefully with full life support system as a standby.!!

"Iraq is the center of the War. The stratigic rammifications of losing this position would be a disaster. Preserving our Military for some future possible need???? There will not be a future if we run away from the position we are in now."

"The last wager I would ever go all in on would never be one where Islam will kill each other off sufficent to leave the rest of us alone."

Well said flowerknife_us. I was begining to think I was all alone in looking at the forest rather than the bark beetles.

I can just picture Edwards combing Wazirstan.

Assalamau Laikum all,

What's is all this about invading and re-colonising Pak. Has the western world not had enough of these....why do you want our wealth....do you not have enough of yours?

As it is we have 12 years olds working 14 hour days...tell Edwards to p_ss off.

Know that Edwards sounds and talks like an idiot...therfore my advice is for you to definately vote for him afer Dubiya...continuation of more of the same.

What is needed is greater understanding of Pak and Islam in the Amerike...Pak is a younbg nation and we have wee growing pains...you have been around for a while.

So back off...and we'll be in touch...

naseem

nobody wants to colonize pak, simply liberate it and give it back to its rightfull owners: the Hindus and the Sikhs.

"We ought to use our tremendous tools - diplomacy, arm sales, trade, foreign aid - to get states to shut down terror cells."

Just shows you that demicans are just as clueless as republicrats. We shouldn't be diplomatic, sell weapons, trade, or give foreign aid (welfare) to death cult islamic nations in the first place... I wonder if the "My Little Pony" hair brushing metrosexual knows the Pakis have nukes?

This is about as ridiculous as a summer day is long. If Edwards thinks that Iraq is a quagmire, think what sort of mess Pakistan, with several times Iraq's population, would be!

Thinking of Obama,the first Dhimmicrap to suggest invading Pathologicalstan, everyone says he's Kennedyesque--young and inexperience in foreign policy. Like Kennedy, he'll also give us an endless, unwinnable war and foreign aid programs that gave people already resentful towards us an entitlement mentality towards our largesse. At the same time, the party of Edwards and Obama is going to throw open the floodgates to every would-be terrorist from Morocco to Mindanao.

Prediction: After January, 2009, we'll be in a three front war with one in Afghanistan and Pakistan; one in Iraq; and one in Sudan.

No need to post this on screen.

I am just testing the system after finally getting Typekey to accept my details and letting me sign in.

I am from Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK. Bradford is also known as two things.
1. Capital of Bradistan
2. Centre of the known curryverse.

You will also find me posting regularly on EUreferendum.blog which I know is well known in the US. Dr Richard North of EUreferendum also lives in Bradford. I have had coffee at his house with him and his wife Mary many times

lol @ topic...

He'd invade his mama's bedroom if it'd get him elected (not that it will help him now anyway)...
He couldn't invade a paper bag!
PuhLEASE!
LOL

I think this site is a terror site running by christian terrorist Mr. Robert Spencer.
is it right?

please answer me..