Becuase Everything Else Sucks

The Daily Show – Who put the bomb in Obama?

By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, August 3rd, 2007, 8:38 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Videos, US Politics

Slight differences in language to describe the same foreign policy of Obama and Clinton, along with subsequent post-debate comments have led to a feeding frenzy in the media. I’m glad to report that we have not reported on this non-story. Whether this decision was made consciously or out of pure laziness is probably best left up to your own interpretation. Anyway, the stigma attached to favoring diplomacy over military action has resulted in Obama slumming with Hillary for the title of biggest warmonger. Stewart sums up the idiocy of it all.



download file

By now I imagine you’ve all gotten over the disappointment which is Barack Obama. You know, the candidate who wants to be like Hillary, who wants to be like Lieberman, who wants to be like Bush, who wants to be like Cheney. I don’t think anyone here was ever fooled into believing Barack was an anti-war candidate, but I personally didn’t expect him to make the incredibly stupid move of threatening Pakistan with military action. As if Hillary’s spin wasn’t devastating enough, now he’s being pwnd by Pakistani officials too. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister called Obama’s statement irresponsible, and said; “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.” Ouch. The Obarometer just hit a new low.

Related Posts

5 Responses to “The Daily Show – Who put the bomb in Obama?”

  1. How about everyone votes for Homer Simpson.

    yazo
    08/3/07 at 5:41 pm

  2. Fuckin’ CNN…

    PapaFigue
    08/3/07 at 7:48 pm

  3. […] […]

    The Daily Show – Who put the bomb in Obama? By Manila Ryce « Dandelion Salad
    08/4/07 at 4:57 am

  4. Clinton and Edwards AGREE with Obama.

    Clinton:

    “If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” she said.”

    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates

    Edwards:

    “My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate,” Edwards said on camera. “I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can’t do the job, then we have to do it.”

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/300839.aspx

    And there are others who support Obama, like Richard Clarke:

    I believe his speech is a comprehensive, sophisticated approach to terrorism. I was glad to see it recognized the importance of stopping repressive police and intelligence activities in countries threatened by al-Qaeda and terrorism. I’m also glad to see him say clearly that we are not at war with Islam but must partner with Muslims threatened by al-Qaeda. On Pakistan, I think it must be true anywhere that if we know of high value targets and the host government will not act, we have to do so.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/01/weighing_in_on_obama.html?hpid=topnews

    jb1125
    08/4/07 at 7:01 am

  5. Not that I would vote for Barak Obama, as I think he is an opportunistic left-wing nut who wants to redistribute the money earned by the middle class and make this country an even bigger welfare state than it already is, but he finally said something I can agree with.

    If bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan and they are aware of it, we should level the whole damned country and make an example out of them.

    -kf
    08/4/07 at 6:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>