That’s right - Barak Obama, a presidential candidate who isn’t even the front-runner for his party’s nomination has so scared the Pakistani public that the little General might have to declare a state of emergency to calm things down! I didn’t want to Ms. Rice, but Obama was gonna make me do it!

Of course, this excuse is completely bogus.

No, it's not! How apposite, that someone named Bharath Obama has such an effect on Mushie. ;) The blood feud rages on...

No, it's not! How apposite

Tancredo lover!

Note to both the Guardian and Ennis -- his name is Barack Obama. If he can say "Pakistan" right, we should get his name right. :-)

D'oh! Fixed in mine, leaving the quote as is.

I wonder what the state department has to say about Obama's and Tancerdo's persistent stance. Because the last time, they sounded pretty pissed.

Although I have to say, Bush made similar remarks and got away with it.

Tom Tancredo continued to defend his comments that threatening to bomb Muslim holy sites would be the right way to “deter any kind of aggression” from terrorists and said that anyone who wouldn’t do the same “isn’t fit to be president” on Sunday morning

And Romney said that he would double that and in addition bomb the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and Ali's Shrine in Najaf.

The Pakistani foreign minister did cite Tancredo. Still waiting for them to blame Sepia Mutiny of Britain.

Actually, a report on CNN now says that it was Condoleezza Rice who changed Musharraf's opinion, and made him decide to hold off on imposing a state of emergency. So, I guess we can't really say anybody was responsible for Musharraf's decision except Musharraf himself! :)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/pakistan.emergency/index.html

Note to both the Guardian and Ennis -- his name is Barack Obama. If he can say "Pakistan" right, we should get his name right. :-)

I wonder what the state department has to say about Obama's and Tancerdo's persistent stance. Because the last time, they sounded pretty pissed.

Your language implies that Obama's and Tancredo's stances are the same, and given all the misleading coverage and analysis from people who didn't seem to actually read Obama's speech (including Chris Dodd, apparently), it would be best if you not add to this problem.

I'm also curious what you think Obama's "stance" is? Because from their statements, and as the debate the other night showed, none of the major candidates actually disagree with him -- some of them apparently just disagree about whether they should be discussing their policies publicly.

Oh sure - blame the black guy.

If any US Presidential candidate is scaring the Pakistani public, it should be Tancredo:
Tom Tancredo continued to defend his comments that threatening to bomb Muslim holy sites would be the right way to “deter any kind of aggression” from terrorists and said that anyone who wouldn’t do the same “isn’t fit to be president” on Sunday morning.

--> Is it your assumption pakistani public, by and large, puts their religion ahead of their nation ? If they didnt, wouldnt they ignore Tancredo's vitriol ? Yes, there might be rallies but there wont be a perceived hurt to national pride.
I think they do put their religion ahead of their nation(A country that defines itself on the basis of religion can be expected to do so).
I am just curious to know if you do.

I guess I'm the only 1 that doesn't have a problem with what Mr.Tancredo said.

Clueless:

I guess I'm the only 1 that doesn't have a problem with what Mr.Tancredo said.

That is exactly the kind of twisted "logic" that resulted in the Gujarat riots and the horrible happenings in New Delhi after Indira Gandhi was killed. Two wrongs can never make a right

I am betting that Musharraf will be gone [not to the Army Barracks up in the Sky] by the end of the year.
Anybody like to take the counter position?

p.s. by gone, i am not precluding the figurehead position of president [no more general] to benazir's prime minister.

Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery, m'dear, I believe the whole thing actually goes, "bomb Muslim holy sites back to the stone age."

Actually, a report on CNN now says that it was Condoleezza Rice who changed Musharraf's opinion, and made him decide to hold off on imposing a state of emergency.

Mr. Wise, remember this one?

Is it your assumption pakistani public, by and large, puts their religion ahead of their nation ? If they didnt, wouldnt they ignore Tancredo's vitriol ?

It's not as simple as that. We're talking about a minor offense to national pride versus a major threat to the existence of the religion - Obama recommending strategic strikes by special forces (something that has probably already happened) vs. Tancredo recommending destroying entirely Muslim holy sites around the world. The death tolls are orders of magnitudes apart - even if you're talking about Pakistanis only, there would be more Pakistani lives lost in Mecca with Tancredo's "proposal" than lost in Pakistan with Obama's.

I'm curious as to how you cannot have a problem with what Tancredo said.

Runa, they don't call him "clueless" for nothing.

there are moments in this thread that suggest that George W. Bush has successfully dumbed down the national conversation.

#17 Ennis
We're talking about a minor offense to national pride versus a major threat to the existence of the religion - Obama recommending strategic strikes by special forces (something that has probably already happened) vs. Tancredo recommending destroying entirely Muslim holy sites around the world. The death tolls are orders of magnitudes apart - even if you're talking about Pakistanis only, there would be more Pakistani lives lost in Mecca with Tancredo's "proposal" than lost in Pakistan with Obama's.

--> In my opinion, it should be galling for pakistanis to have obama(a presidential candidate, not even a president) talking about surgical strikes inside their country. Talk about powerlessness.
I am still not sure why you bought Tancredo into the picture in the first place. To me, Obama's stock should be bad if his comment is acknowledged as better when compared to Tancredo.

I'm curious as to how you cannot have a problem with what Tancredo said. Because of some Islamic fundamentalists, how is it justifiable to destroy places that are of religious importance to millions of other Muslims?

#16 Amrita, I had no idea! :) I mean, I know that people always seem to think America's hand is behind this current detente and all, but why would Colin Powell go so far as to fabricate the whole thing? It's really difficult to figure out whom to trust, I guess.

Camille # 21, Evil Abhi :-) # 18,

Thanks but seriously-that was not a rhetorical question from me :-) I am seriously interested to know what the logic can possibly be in support of Tancredo's statement which (to me) is clearly either irresponsible, ill-conceived rhetoric or xenophobia.What does anyone supporting Tancredo believe will be the result of actions that he proposes?

Does Tancredo think Mecca is like that alien mothership in the movie Independence Day?

Obama's bold statement is commendable. It completely fits his "out with the old and in with the new" theme. Notice how all the old-timers kind of ganged up on him for suggesting a sensible thing of focusing US's effort on the real "terrorists".
I am happy that Obama lived up to his reputation and atleast injected a fresh idea. Even most Dems are happy to have "their dictators" in place to continue old policy.

Does Tancredo think Mecca is like that alien mothership in the movie Independence Day?

He thinks it's probably more like the Death Star with a Dark Sith Lord at the controls.

I just don't understand why people have a problem with Mr.Tancredo comments. yet don't say anything when leaders in Islamic world talk about raising the flag of Islam at the vatican. Or talking about replacing the laws of some western country with sharia law, and anybody who doesn't convert to Islam, will have to die.

My views are simple the west is best.

I also love how people on the left love to talk about how bad christianty is, yet won't say anything bad about Islam and instead love to blame George W. Bush. I would rather deal with right wing christianty, then right wing islam any day of the week.

By the way, I'm a non-religous person who does not like Bush.

Maybe Tom Tancredo should go to Mecca and see its not a bad place and hopefully change his mind. Oh wait a minute, since he not a muslim he can't go there.

Yet other holy places of other major religons are open to everybody unless I'm mistaken.

Where is the outrage over this.

just don't understand why people have a problem with Mr.Tancredo comments. yet don't say anything when leaders in Islamic world talk about raising the flag of Islam at the vatican

Clueless,
To clarify : I have a problem with all fundamentalism.For those who want to replace western law with Sharia ,for example, I would say : there are many countries that already follow Sharia. They are welcome to emigrate there.

I do not think that Tancredo's proposal - if carried out - will be anything short of disastrous for the world as a whole

of course if what Tancredo said were to happen would be awful. But so would a bunch of nuke attacks on western city by islamic groups.

But most of all a nuke attack on a few western city that kill millions in the west, would be really awful for people like us, who would be victims of hate crimes.

Thanks but seriously-that was not a rhetorical question from me :-) I am seriously interested to know what the logic can possibly be in support of Tancredo's statement which (to me) is clearly either irresponsible, ill-conceived rhetoric or xenophobia.What does anyone supporting Tancredo believe will be the result of actions that he proposes?

Allow me to take a stab:

1. If the religious sites are harboring terrorists or weapons then one could argue their destruction is justified. maybe he's talking about "actionable intelliugence" like Obama.
2. I believe he was talking about a retaliation for a nuclear attack. Not sure how that makes a difference.
3. the bombing of mecca may break the faith of terrorists since presumably allah would protect mecca. perhaps he thinks the doomsday scenario in #2 justifies this scenario.

just guessing

If the religious sites are harboring terrorists or weapons then one could argue their destruction is justified. maybe he's talking about "actionable intelliugence" like Obama.

But isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - a country whose rulers have been in bed with right-of-center Bush dynasty for some generations now?

But isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - a country whose rulers have been in bed with right-of-center Bush dynasty for some generations now?

Saudi Arabia is quite a curious animal. It has one hand in the pants of Exteremist Islamic world stroking there fundamentalistic weenie by pouring in money for spread of wahabism and the middle finger of other hand firmly massaging up the Bush familys collective balls.

Opps remove "finger' and "firmly" from previous post. I think that would hurt :D

But isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - a country whose rulers have been in bed with right-of-center Bush dynasty for some generations now?

No prob. The administration just has to inform the Carlyle group of any attack in advance. This way they can allocate the Bush and Saudi royal family $$$ appropriately. Everyone will then be happy and wealthier. BTYW, Carlyle may go public so we can all get in on the action.

I don't think Tancredo's suggestion will be an effective deterrent. Mecca has been already attacked once and sacked in 830 A.D by Ismaili Muslims (from wiki) and it is no big deal for the terrorists. People with al-qaeda mindset stormed Mecca in 1979 claiming that Saudi Arabia is not Islamic enough.. (ironical :-) ) Some people in Pakistan thought that to be the action of US and burned the US embassy in Islamabad in 1979..

American Presidential hopefuls Obama and Tancredo are fundamentalists. For me they stand at the same level as Al Qaeda. I think ordinary American public should come out openly and criticize them for there comments. If they dont them, then most of the moderates (who belive in Live and Let others Live) like me would have no other option but to be either be with 'west' or with 'east'. Which again would not be good for the peace of the world. Dont make it a crusade. America doesnt need new Bush(s) in whitehouse, american voters should elect a moderate for the peace and betterment of this world. Please dont elect businessmen who rage war for there own monetary benefits (refer to Farenheit 9/11) rather with any genuine reasons. Please elect Leaders with vision for peace!
PM Brown has already started to distance himself from US policies, which shows his far sightedness (Refer to Brit Military statements in Afghanistan & Iraq).
Make it a better place, for you and for me and for the entire universe!

(Your constuctive arguements are welcome)

Cheerz!

im waiting for barak obama to become the richard nixon of iraq. get elected by people who are sick of war. then invade like 5 more countries...

I had the chance to visit the Barak Obama national headquarters here in Chicago this weekend. I asked one of Barak's guys to explain why Mr. Obama would want to break international law and violate a country's sovereignty. The guy explained that the press had a field day with this and all Mr. Obama implied was that after all diplomatic channels were exhausted, then he would seriously consider a strike. I replied by questioning him that wasn't that one of the current Bush administration's arguements for Iraq. This was pretty much where the conversation ended.