...being old enough to have watched the Nuremberg trials has finally paid off.

Obvious response: You can't kill bin Laden if he is running free thanks to the Bush/McCain invasion of Iraq.

Checkmate.

So he's willing to kill Osama but he's in favor of sinking all of our military resources into Iraq instead of actually catching Osama.

One of my favorite political cartoons during the primary campaign came in late ZFebruary, and showed HRC and BO sitting across me other at a table playing a game on a chess board. Obama was playing chess, HRC was playing checkers. I found it incredibly insightful relative to how the campaigns were relating to one another (and the overall strategic goals).

Personally, you can re-draw the thing now with McCain. Only he's playing tic-tac-toe. This simplistic messaging of the GOP is so, well, plainly stupid with zero heft or factual basis behind it (not to mention the lack of historical accuracy on many points).

McCain's in trouble. I really sense it. Personally, the attacks of the last two weeks have been child's play compared to the primary campaign. Perhaps Hillary was right? Anything that could be perceived as wholly negative on Obama's background has been vetted in the media as old news..... I wonder if there are any actual shockers out there?

I guess McFuddle forgot that we are a counrty of laws. I guess a trial and a conviction will stand in his way of justice. What a sick tired used up old fart he is these days. Would he believe it is too bad North Vietnam didn't believe in McFuddle's way of justice!

I read this and got a mental picture so awful I just have to share:

Rambo McLame - shirtless but for the automatic rounds draped across his torso, with a headband around his forehead, a knife in his teeth, stalking bin Laden.

Somebody pass the brain bleach, please...

Obama: "What a joke. McCain ain't gonna kill nobody."

Look at these two pathetic punks, waving their fists at each other over the Big Bad Boogie Man.

As the great Benazir Bhutto said, Obama bin Laden is dead. Killed back in 2002 by CIA Pakistan intelligence mole, Omar Sheik. (The same man who beheaded WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl.)

Two shadows on the wall of the cave.

Will the killing happen at the gates of hell? Where are they?

How does McCain intend to kill him? In a cage match with his bare hands? Will he hire a hit man? Will he issue an executive order directing OBL's execution? Or will he have, perhaps, a trial of some sort?

Yeah he'll kill Osama right after he invades Iran first. McCain is huffing and puffing but he's got no wind. Truely hypocritical how the GOP thinks they can fight terrorism when the truth is,...they're the ones who are creating it with useless invasions.

please note that it's habeas corpus, not habeus corpus. For those who care, habeas is a second-person present subjunctive.

I have to say this sounds effective to the low-information voter.

see the update, all. it's funny stuff

Under my administration, John McCain will either be retired to Del Boca Vista or issued a ticket for loitering.

John McCain's Anger Management Systems.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/I/A/2/mccain-anger-management.jpg

Hmm, that's interesting John. But why do I have the feeling that Osama is no more afraid of you than he is of Obama? Why do I have the feeling that tough talk and results are once again going to not just be orthogonal, but inversely correlated?

I suppose Obama should now detail how he'll cut Osama into little pieces and feed them to pigs?

How does McCain plan to find Bin Laden when he'll have the exact same resources Bush does - Does he think Bush isn't trying hard enough? I mean at least Obama can say that with the troops out of Iraq he'd have many more options at his disposal.

sounds like OBAMA is starting to look as weak as i said he was in capitulating in chicago. you think he is going to stand up in the end but he folds everytime. he is just an arrogant chosen empty suit with great sound bits not real solutions and willings to cave whenever the going gets tough.

he threw over rev wright
threw over his church
votes present whenever it was a tough vote
dumped his good friend rezko when the going got tough
caved on nafta
caved on bringing the troops home
caved on finance reform and public funding
caved on johnson on his vetting committee

in my humble opinion he is manipulative at best and weak at worst.

the below post from TM is too good not to share and very relevant. thought i would share!

June 19, 2008 -- NAME-BRAND journalists have let Barack Obama make any claim he chooses about Iraq, Afghanistan or coping with terrorism without pinning him down for details.

Yet many of his comments and positions seem stunningly naive about national security. Given that this man may become our next president, shouldn't he explain how he'd do the many impressive things he's promised?

This week, Obama claimed, again, that he'd promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven't been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can't just respond, "That's classified."

He also claimed that fighting terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one (should we send the NYPD to Mosul and Kandahar?), and that the answer to terrorism is the approach taken after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, featuring conventional trials and prison terms.

snip

The senator needs to tell us why it would be different now.
Obama has also said he'd send our troops into Pakistan, although he'll withdraw rapidly from Iraq. His unwillingness to discuss the consequences of a hasty retreat from Baghdad is one thing - but invading Pakistan would be an order of magnitude worse.

A substantial number of Iraq's 26 million citizens did welcome us. In Pakistan, with its 170 million Muslims and some of the most rugged terrain on earth, anti-Americanism prevails. Any US military incursion would be greeted with outrage and demands for a military response.
Nor does Obama appear to grasp that armies need fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts and other supplies. Nearly everything for our troops in landlocked Afghanistan, from bottled water to medical supplies, now comes via Pakistani ports, roads and railroads. If those long, difficult routes were cut, how would President Obama supply our troops? And no, it can't all be done by air.

Oh, Pakistan has nukes, too.

Also this week, Obama's advisers stated that, if apprehended, Osama bin Laden should be tried in a conventional US courtroom. My fellow Americans, do you believe that?

Do you believe that this arch-terrorist, publicly proud of his responsibility for 9/11, should be given all the rights of a US citizen and a public platform to engage in propaganda?

What the full-rights-for-terrorists advocates fail to comprehend is that our judicial processes - so dear to us - are viewed by terrorists as a means to advance their cause, to embarrass us, to reveal our intelligence methods and to perpetuate their martyr myth.

Harsh as it may sound, a dead terrorist is dead, but an imprisoned terrorist is a cause (and not just for his fellow radicals). Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is forgotten, but our Guantanamo prisoners are pop stars.
Obama appears out of his depth on all this, but the gushingly friendly media have given him a pass on every groundless claim or gaffe. It's time for journalists to start asking him tough questions - to press him when he doesn't give serious answers. Isn't that their job?

Those who knew Obama in his university days claim that he couldn't be persuaded to study history. It shows. And his lifelong lack of interest in the military is self-evident.

The response that "he has knowledgeable advisers" isn't enough. Obama's military and counterterror "experts" compose a unique collection of the dismissed, the discredited and the dysfunctional. Most appear to be out to settle personal grudges rather than to advance our nation's security.

Let's hope that just one high-profile journalist pushes Obama on the following questions:
* How would you find Osama bin Laden? What, specifically, would you do differently?
* What would be the rules for capturing or killing Osama?
* How would you manage the consequences of the military incursion into Pakistan you've threatened? Are you willing to go to war with Pakistan?
* What would be the specific results of a swift troop withdrawal from Iraq?
* Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?
* Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?

If this highly talented candidate has glaring gaps in his understanding of the world, voters deserve to know. If his campaign promises have no substance, we deserve to know that, too.

I support John McCain for president, but I live by the values that guided me as an Army officer: I will support my commander in chief as chosen by the American people, no matter who he (or, one day, she) may be. But until the people make their choice, both candidates should be held to the same tough standards of truth in advertising.
Sen. Obama, tell us how.

It's laughable every time McCain makes his lame, manufactured "judgment and experience" argument a man of exponentially superior intellect.

Sen. McCain, it's not advisable to take a spitball and a straw to a gunfight.

Will McCain run his WHOLE campaign telling us what he says Obama intends to do? This is getting old and rerun sounding, yet it is only the middle of June.........

More likely he'll continue the Bush policy of kissing Saudi royal ass, and ignoring the root cause of all of this:

http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

As he says, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Bomb, Bomb-Iran".

Republicans only talk about Bin Laden during election years. He's their Emmanuel Goldstein. A propaganda tool. Nothing more.

I don't see him doing it. By the time Noah gets through building his ark, OBL will indeed be dead!

Obama's Tough response:

I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

What a putz. Personally, I think the fact that McCain would martyr bin Laden while Obama would stick him where he belongs in perpetual humiliation and isolation with all the other crazies in the federal dungeon in Florence, CO is a huge selling point for Obama. Surely the Republicans remember how McVeigh psyched out all the relatives of the people he murdered right there on the death gurney by giving the CCTV camera that cold, disdainful look right to the end.