What's new

McCain and Obama

We have been following Obama for a long time, he did indeed say he would go after Bin Laden regardless of what the Pakistanis think. Now he just changed it to..."if they cant or wont do it themselves," just like he changed his stance on a number of issues including meeting the President of Iran in his first time as president without preconditions...
 
Wait a min, you're a Pakistani and an Obama fan?:what: That's something...
 
Mind explaining that to me mate? I dont want to criticize, but just wanna know why you are not put off by his strong Anti-Pakistani rhetoric?
 
Mind explaining that to me mate? I dont want to criticize, but just wanna know why you are not put off by his strong Anti-Pakistani rhetoric?

he might just be saying to get favorism by majority ... do you think US will want to invade Pakistan looking at where Pakistan is now.. Obama is might/might not invade... right??

McCain will definitely not end the war as he says.

Would you rather take chances with Obama or do a for sure with McCain.. dead end??!
 
We have been following Obama for a long time, he did indeed say he would go after Bin Laden regardless of what the Pakistanis think. Now he just changed it to..."if they cant or wont do it themselves," just like he changed his stance on a number of issues including meeting the President of Iran in his first time as president without preconditions...
When did he make that statement, do you have a link?
 
I'm afriad not, it was during the Primaries, maybe I can look it up on youtube and get back to you. But I know and I remember that is what he said, the "only if Pakistan cant do it themselves part" came later.
 
Totally disagree with the viewpoint expressed by durran3.

The Republicans have always been good to Pakistan, ever since the fifties, and the days of Eisenhower when they armed Pakistan to the teeth. It is the Deomcrats who have never fully appreciated Pakistan as an ally. How can we forget Bill Clinton's attitude towards Pakistan, and how we literally had to grovel to let him visit us when he visited India.

Whenever there has been a REpublican govt, it has mostly been good for Pakistan, as our aid has always significantly increased. How we mismanaged that aid is another question.

One of the reasons had always been the closeness of the Pakistan and US armies, and the fact that the Republicans as a party are closer to the military establishment than the Democrats.

Although the Jewish vote is wooed by both parties, they have a stronger influence on the Democratic Party than the Republican one, which is also a reason for the Democratic party's ambivalent and sometimes hostile attitudes towards Pakistan.

Even now, the Democratic candidates like Clinton, and Obama had been making Anti Pakistan noises and if the democrats win power, there will be a shift in policy. Pakistan will face mortal danger if the Democrats come to power, while with the REpublicans we can see more of a pragmatic relationship in teh future.

Sorry for the very late reply.. but you aren't seeing the big picture. Why do you think Republicans give Pakistan weapons, money and aid. Its not that they love us my friend.. its because for them Pakistan is a tool that they can use whenever they want to. They wanted to make Pakistan a front line fighting Bulwark in their fight against the Soviets.

Heres the question.. why should Pakistan even get involved? When its not in their interest in any form or way. Pakistan gets a nice short term boost in foreign reserves from all the US aid popping in but you don't look at the long term blow-back and the consequences that follow after wards... A Good example?? Zia-ul-Haqs mujahadeen

Why is it that the US keeps supporting these Military Generals like Zia-ul-Haq or Pervaiz Musharaf. Its because a Democratic Pakistan is NOT in their interest. Republicans simply won't leave Pakistan alone.. Democrats Will.. and if you think that Democrats leaving Pakistan alone means their attitude towards pakistan is Hostile.. than so be it.. Its still better than having a Friend who is only using your Country for its own Pleasure.
 

21 Oct 2008

LAHORE: Barack Obama may be winning in the U.S. and most global popularity polls, but he’s a loser in Pakistan.

Dozens of students interviewed at two top universities by the Washington Times in this country’s second-largest city, a cultural melting pot known for its liberal leanings, rejected Mr. Obama as "too aggressive," "irresponsible" and an "enemy of Muslims" whose stated policy toward insurgency-plagued areas would make a bad situation worse.

The anti-Obama sentiment stems from assertions on the campaign trail that the senator from Illinois, if elected president, would authorize U.S. forces to enter Pakistani territory to hunt down Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

"The only country he’s talking about bombing today is us," said Sher Afghen Malik, a political science major at the University of the Punjab, to the approving nods of classmates. "How could we possibly support him?"

Posters made by an Islamic student group have found their way onto campus walls, showing a map of Pakistan clutched by hairy, red-fanged claws wrapped in the American flag. Khansa Qamar, a member of the school’s model United Nations club, said her peers perceive Mr. Obama "as even more dangerous than George W. Bush" with regard to his stance on Pakistan. By a show of hands, not one among two dozen students in one class supported the Democratic candidate.

A little more than half said they prefer Sen. John McCain of Arizona because the Republican presidential candidate’s statements on Pakistan have been less pointed. Mr. Obama has stressed that he is not calling for an invasion of Pakistan, but restated in the second presidential debate on Oct. 7 that if its government is "unable or unwilling to hunt down [Osama] bin Laden and take him out, then we should."
 
If Bin Laden re-emerges, McCain stands to gain

* Boston Globe report quotes CIA analyst saying Osama wanted Bush to win presidential election despite portraying opposite
* Says McCain could benefit from anything that puts Bin Laden back in news

LAHORE: The election of Senator John McCain as United States president could in fact benefit Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, a report in the Boston Globe said on Tuesday.

It said that Bin Laden has an eye on the US election and the last time they were held, Bin Laden injected himself into the campaign at the penultimate moment, releasing a nearly 15-minute videotape just four days before America went to the polls.

His awareness of American politics was evident in his 2004 videotape, a rant that is far more interesting when decoded as a political document than as a national-security threat, the report said.

In it, Bin Laden directly taunted George W Bush, saying “despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened”. By implication, Bin Laden seemed to be saying that he might back off if Americans elected John Kerry - that he, the world's terrorist mastermind, preferred Kerry to Bush.

An immediate interpretation of the video was that Bin Laden wanted Kerry to win, and was already dancing on the grave of his mortal enemy, President Bush.

Bush: But as author Ron Suskind revealed in his book ‘The One Percent Doctrine’, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts who tracked Bin Laden felt that the Al Qaeda leader wanted the opposite result - Bush's re-election, the report claimed.

It said he speculated that Bin Laden believed that Bush's aggressiveness in Iraq, as well as embarrassments such as the treatment of prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, had devastated America's image on the ‘Arab Street’, sending many young radicals into Al Qaeda's hands.

Whatever Bin Laden intended, American voters clearly resented his taunting of their commander in chief, and the video helped rally last-minute support for Bush. Bin Laden's success in influencing American politics in 2004 makes it quite plausible that he would try to do it again - through another video, a direct threat, or, perhaps, some sort of attack in the US or abroad.

This possibility was on the mind of John McCain's senior adviser, Charlie Black, when he mused to Fortune magazine last June that another attack on American soil would be ‘a big advantage’ for McCain.

Benefit: Black was roundly criticised, but his prediction may not be that far off - McCain could benefit from anything that puts Bin Laden back in the news.

At first glance, this seems illogical. Throughout the campaign, McCain has been the person insisting that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, while Barack Obama has put greater emphasis on catching and/or killing Bin Laden. It was Obama who made the risky pledge to go into the Pakistani territory and hunt down Bin Laden, whether or not the Pakistani government approves. (McCain hasn't ruled out such a move but criticised Obama for telegraphing his intentions).

So if Bin Laden reasserts himself, a logical assumption might be that Obama, who has targeted the Al Qaeda leader more directly, would benefit, the paper said.

But it's worth noting that in 2004, Kerry - like Howard Dean before him - also stressed his desire to capture and/or kill Bin Laden, and claimed that the Iraq war was distracting from that goal, it wrote. Bush, in fact, downplayed the threat from Bin Laden, claiming that he had already been isolated.

But voters, in times of fear, turn to the more hawkish candidate overall. And in this race, McCain has shown greater faith in the idea that maintaining a strong military force in the Middle East can lead to ‘victory’ in Iraq. Voters have tired of the war in Iraq, and are more willing than ever to see it as a distraction. But for McCain, just like Bush before him, Iraq has been an opportunity to stress his belief in American power and its ability to impose America's will on the world.

American voters are deeply sceptical. But when confronted with a threat, they want to believe that their military can protect them - that Bin Laden is fearful of unleashing American rage, and wouldn't want a warrior like McCain in the White House. Even if the opposite is true.


Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
Just watch, a Bin Laden video will hit the airways near election day!

The Republicans are a cunning bunch...................Same as 04'!
 

By Mahmud Sipra

Whatever the outcome, it is the post-November 4 scenario that America must brace itself for. Just how responsible and gracious either man or his supporters will be in victory and or in defeat is what will set the pace for the next four years

There are numerous epiphanies that one could attach to the rise and rise of Barack Hussein Obama, the Democratic Party’s candidate for the office of President of the United States of America.

Senator Obama has spent twenty-two months of his 47 years on this planet in the US Senate. And now he is running for President. Not bad for a kid who grew up on the mean streets of Chicago. When other black kids were swaggering around playing mean and hip-hopping, young Obama was preparing himself to go where no black kid had ever dreamed of going — the White House. Not as a guest or to perform, but as its lawful occupant.

Looking back now to his formative years, one would imagine that was probably the time his ‘first’ epiphany occurred.

Mr Obama seems to have had many mentors, both spiritual and political. Notable among them is his ‘friendship’ with a man named Bill Ayers, a former “terrorist” responsible for a spate of bombings of government buildings. Let us accept Mr Obama’s explanation on this one — that “he was only eight-years-old when Ayers went on his bombing spree...”

But then how does he explain his having allegedly written the foreword to Ayers’ book after he came of age? Maybe this is a false argument and one should again accept the other half of his wisdom of keeping interesting friends: “I thought he (Ayers) had by then been rehabilitated!”

And what of the other, about being of the flock of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Senator Obama faithfully sat and listened to this pastor spew racially charged invectives from the pulpit for twenty years before opting, only a few months ago, to distance him self from this rabble rousing demagogue.

Senator McCain on his part has signalled to his supporters that the Obama-Wright relationship, although wrong, should be considered out of bounds as an election issue. Even if Obama were to win the election, this one is not going to go away anytime soon. Neither is an entity called ACORN.

The Encarta Dictionary lists a number of meanings for the word ‘epiphany’ — there are some that may have a direct bearing on Senator Obama’s political and personal profile.

Here are a few: “a sudden intuitive leap of understanding, especially through an ordinary but striking occurrence.” And, as an example of usage, “it came to him in an epiphany what his life’s work was to be.”

Given Mr Obama’s messianic appeal, there are those that might relate to this one: “the supposed manifestation of a divine being.”

Senator Obama has made light of such epiphanic or biblical references to himself by stating: “No, I was not born in a manger!” Even so, some of Obama’s other self-deprecating remarks clearly carry a self-serving racist tone and tenor. Like when he famously remarked: “I don’t look like those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

He has through most of his campaign maintained a standard in his speeches reminiscent of the eloquence of JFK and Reagan, and on occasion displayed a caustic wit, which his opponent Senator McCain, with his straight talking approach, has very wisely steered away from. But then most American elections seem to run more on style, or the lack of it, and sadly less and less on substance.

While Senator McCain painstakingly hammers away at not burdening the average American with more taxes and lessening the oil import bill by allowing domestic drilling and switching to alternative energy solutions, Obama opposes both, choosing instead to counter with a bizarre promise of ‘spreading the wealth’! What wealth? Obama’s idea of spreading or sharing the wealth is sending close to a trillion dollars overseas to pay for the oil America imports.

Senator Obama seems to have surged ahead of his rival in the polls in recent weeks as has the vitriol. “The venom endures largely because not only is the Illinois senator the first African-American who’s ever come this close to the presidency, but his background — biracial, lived in Indonesia for a time, grew up in Hawaii, has the middle name Hussein — isn’t the stuff of past presidential resumes.” Fair comment, but he is still ahead in the polls.

The Republican defence, as articulated by strategist Kieth Appel, is: “What you have (from the Democrats) is an attempt to shame people to vote for Barack Obama by trying to paint those who would vote for John McCain as people who somehow, someway, harbour racist sentiments. That’s disgusting”.

If one separates all the partisan vitriol and takes in the world view of this young American leader, it may become clear to some of his detractors why Barack Obama has succeeded in reaching out to not just his own country’s fellow citizens but beyond to Europe Africa and Asia. He has done this in a world that seems more and more divided along religious lines, as he articulated in an address on June 28, 2006:

“If we truly hope to speak to people where they are at, to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. Because we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion in the negative sense of where or how it should be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our own obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome, others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.”

There is this side of Barack Obama as well.

This particular presidential election is going to the wire with the polls showing Senator Obama substantially ahead and Senator McCain having to defend his bid against Obama’s rapier sharp attacks on the soft underbelly of the Republican Party’s policies of the last eight years under George W Bush, charges that finally forced Senator McCain to come up with a spirited defence: “It is not George Bush who is running for the presidency here...” A one-liner he ought to have come up with at the very outset of his campaign.

A recent exchange between Senator McCain and one of his supporters went like this: “Senator McCain, I don’t trust Barack Obama...he is an Arab.” “No ma’am,” replied McCain, “Senator Obama is a decent family man, a citizen. It’s just that I happen to have disagreements with him.”

Whatever the differences between the two rivals, only one of them is going to eventually occupy the White House. The next two weeks may be crucial for both candidates. Whatever the outcome, it is the post-November 4 scenario that America must brace itself for. Just how responsible and gracious either man or his supporters will be in victory and or in defeat is what will set the pace for the next four years.

Mahmud Sipra is a best selling author and an independent columnist. He can be reached at sipraindubai@yahoo.com
 
Ninety percent of US Muslims voting for Obama

October 28, 2008

WASHINGTON: About 90 percent of American Muslims are expected to vote for Barack Obama on November 4, according to a key Muslim community leader, who wished to remain anonymous since any open or overt expression of support from a Muslim group for Obama is likely to hurt rather than help his bid for the White House.

Leading Muslim organisations and groups have been requested by Obama’s people not to declare their support to the Democratic candidate openly as they fear it will be used to decry the senator as a ‘crypto Muslim’ or ‘jihahidi manqué,’ so much paranoia about Islam and Muslims has been spread by neocon supporters of John McCain and certain radical, ultra conservative church and evangelical groups. According to Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Taskforce on Universal Rights and Elections, “Our goal is to maximise Muslim voter turnout, support candidates who support civil liberties, world peace, universal healthcare, better education, a fair immigration policy and social justice.

Even if better candidates were to win on November 4, it will take a long and determined effort to help restore America’s promise, ideals and principles.” The American Muslim Taskforce is planning to release a Muslim-American voter survey in the next few days. khalid hasan
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom