« John Kerry: Obama's Public Financing Decision Will Enable Him To Avoid My Fate | Home | Alarmed GOP Sends In Bush To Help Save Mississippi Senate Seat »

McCain: I Will Kill Bin Laden; Obama Won't Say What He'd Do

This isn't terribly surprising, but it's noteworthy: Judging by a new statement McCain just put out slamming Obama, the McCain campaign has clearly made an internal decision to ratchet up its efforts to portray him as not just weak, but as vacillating and indecisive.

This is the real goal of the McCain campaign's attacks on Obama for favoring habeas corpus for terror suspects -- to make the argument that McCain represents clarity of purpose while Obama represents indecision and legalistic obfuscation. Remember the Kerry wind-surfing ad?

Versions of the words "vacillate" and "indecisive" were much more in evidence on the McCain campaign conference call this morning than in past calls.

And McCain's new statement attacks Obama's comment yesterday that we shouldn't make Bin Laden a "martyr" by saying that it sent "a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries." McCain added: "Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed."

In other words, just as it did in 2004, the GOP is going out of its way to say that the Democrat's position is unclear and legalistic, even if it is every bit as clear as McCain's, which it is. It's an obvious psych-out. McCain's full statement after the jump.


Late Update: Oh, Lord, this is a good one. Instaputz reminds us that this actually represents a softening of McCain's position: After all, McCain had previously vowed to follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell. Video here.

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for. After enthusiastically embracing the Supreme Court decision granting habeas in U.S. civilian courts to dangerous terrorist detainees, he is now running away from the consequences of that decision and what it would mean if Osama bin Laden were captured. Senator Obama refuses to clarify whether he believes habeas should be granted to Osama bin Laden, and instead cites the precedent of the Nuremburg war trials. Unfortunately, it is clear Senator Obama does not understand what happened at the Nuremburg trials and what procedures were followed. There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. Senator Obama cannot have it both ways. In one breath he endorses habeas for terrorists like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and in the next he denies its logical conclusion of habeas for Osama bin Laden. By citing a historical precedent that does not include habeas, he sends a signal of confusion and indecision to our allies and adversaries and the American people.

Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed. Senator Obama's failure to comprehend the implication of the Supreme Court decision he embraced and the historical precedent of Nuremberg raise serious questions about judgment and experience and whether Senator Obama is ready to assume the awesome responsibilities of commander in chief.


85 Comments

| Leave a comment

"Confused." Is that code for young?

damn you beat me to it.

McCain is projecting his own confusion between habeas corpus and a Get Out of Jail Free Card from Monopoly.

user-pic

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

I love these jokes, ageism be damned.

ohmygod, funny stuff. The smile, too much. Good laugh, thanks!

user-pic

The Obama response needs to be short and to the point.

"Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed." followed by "It's unfortunate that John McCain seems unable to grasp this concept".

End of release.

Who the hell wants to read through that rambling b.s. just put out by McCain?

user-pic

Just scrub this comment. I thought that was a quote from Obama. Duh.

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

Checkmate.

Just so long as killing him does not require going into Pakistan without their permission, right?

We'll put a sandwich under a box propped up by a stick on the Afghani side of the border.

user-pic

...not Ham...that's cruel and unusual...

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.

Its the new counter terrorism strategy, if we ignore bin Laden but beat our chests about killing him, he'll just wander into the FBI building looking to turn himself in.

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?

user-pic
This simplistic messaging of the GOP

The messaging is all over the place, just like yesterday. First it's the campaign financing. Now it's bin Laden. Yesterday it was national security, then it was "stop attacking Cindy!!!@##!"

Exactly. They're throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. In effect, McCain has adopted the "kitchen sink" approach to the campaign that worked so marvelously for HRC.

Thanks to not having cable, I have no idea how the MSM is reporting this. As usual, though, based on the genuinely unobjectvie sources I choose to peruse, none of this will be effective in any measurable sort of way in order to drive some narrative.

Time for Obama to go on offense with a consistent line of attack against McCain. perhaps the strategy is to let McCain blow himself out attacking, and then counter-attack consistently (for like a week) by noting the huge holes in McC's arguments, one-by-one.

Then again, the real campaign doesn't seriously start until September.

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!

user-pic

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...

Tena...McFuddle has used up all the brain bleach already...LOL

Rambo McFuddle roaming the hills for Osama but he is looking for him in Iraq....

In your case, none needed! :-)

LOL McCain, heard that one before from Bush.

user-pic

O so true!

Just run the vid of Bush - 'nuff said.

Didn't McCain say he'd chase bin laden "to the gates of hell" when he was trying to out crazy the crazies back in one of the first repub debates? Where's the vid of that?

Found it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C_-rnJxo0Fo

and this one has that creepy ass smile at the end...

user-pic

Do you think McCain means with his bare hands? Or with his healthcare plan? Or will he simply bore him to death?

user-pic

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

Oh joy. More macho bullshit posturing. Just what we need from a potential president.

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.

user-pic

Obama bin Laden?

It seems Larry Johnson has a TPM account..

Benazir Bhutto did say that Bin Ladin was killed by Omar Sheik in a interview for Al-Jazerra British TV with Robert Frost just before her death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

user-pic

You'll be updating the story with Obama's response, right?

user-pic

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

Economy please.

So if he's going to kill Bin Laden, but Bush has had seven years to get him and grill him and hasn't, can McCain tell us what Bush has done wrong and what McCain will do differently? Is he suggesting that we invade Pakistan, for example? After all, we do have to catch OBL first, and he may well be there.

user-pic

John, Osama Bin Laden is waiting for you at the Gates of Hell. Get goin already.

user-pic

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?

Senator Obama is obviously confused about what the United States Supreme Court decided and what he is calling for.

Huh?

McPudknocker challenging the opinion of a Constitutional Lawyer?

mmmmm

No fooling.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

Cool. I would love to know that stuff. Cs in Latin

Dude, you're 72. Stop the macho crap. Obama can kick your ass at this point. Besides, having opposed the war, he would have been mcuh more likely to have killed bin Laden by now by virtue of having not lost focus by fighting a war in Iraq that has strengthen Iran.

Typos: mchu = much; strengthen = strengthened

We need an edit function.

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

user-pic

I completely agree, and I'm hoping for a strong response from the Obama campaign.

They're letting McCain start to develop a theme about Obama, and it needs to be stopped, immediately.

Exactly.

They're lost anyway, unless economic hardship opens their minds.

user-pic

I disagree. They're not lost yet. I would argue that all the activity between now and the convention is critical in creating a story that voters can wrap their thoughts around.

Letting McCain prattle on about Osama bin Laden lets him start to create the theme that he's going to look out for us, while Obama talks about the rights of terrorists. Now is the time to combat that, not later.

And yeah, Jon Stewart is absolutly hilarious. But he's reaching a segment of the population that's going to vote for Obama, anyway.

user-pic

see the update, all. it's funny stuff

user-pic

Anyone remember that SNL episode where the running joke was Clayton Williams' campaign against Anne Richards for governor? Clayton was always trying to top himself and then finally, we had a campaign commercial from the state executioner, Randy X. I remember his slogan "Vote for me, vote for death. Randy X...why not skip the middleman?"

What's McCAAAIIINNN!!!'s next act, saying "unlike Sen Obama, I'll give bin Laden a thousand paper cuts, then make him swim in lemon juice...and THEN I'll have him either executed or killed on the battlefield. Nyahh!!"

The Truth:

If John McCain becomes president, Osama bin Laden will outlive him.

ouch, and hilarious

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

I say we kill OBL by unplugging his dialysis machine. Oh right, there's no electricity in his cave. And, oh right, he's probably already dead.

Wait, didn't Obama already do a rejoinder on this issue. Greg, can you find the quote where Barack said(it was something like this),

"John McCain says he will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he won't follow Osama Bin Laden where he actually is, the hills between Afganistan and Pakistan. If I have actionable intelligence of high value terrorist targets and General Musharraf will not act, I will."

Sounds to me like somebody's got a "missile gap". . .

Yep, from his foreign policy speech back in March:

And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America’s homeland and Pakistan’s stability. If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have belatedly – if tacitly – acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed, it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq – a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

It is precisely this kind of political point-scoring that has opened up the security gap in this country. We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually goes. What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3AM phone calls. What we need is a pragmatic strategy that focuses on fighting our real enemies, rebuilding alliances, and renewing our engagement with the world’s people.

http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-obamas-iraq-speech/

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?

President Obama will authorize First Lady Michelle to take out bin Laden, because it is a well known fact that Islamic Terrorists and Right Wing Republicans are scared to death of strong women.

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.

While this may be laughable to us in the blogosphere, as I said on an earlier post regarding public financing: this sort of attack has a lot of traction with the folks who get their news from radio, the 5 o'clock news and the local paper. All they'll hear is "Mccain: I'll kill Bin Laden! Obama: I don't want to make a martyr out of Bin Laden, he would have trial..."

Obama needs to start going on the offensive right now. All he's done is defend against republican attacks. While his defenses have been quick and accurate, in politics that doesn't matter as much as setting the tone and topics of the debate while also defining your opponent. Right now he's falling into the same trap the dems keep falling for which is to let the repubs do all the defining and attacking. Remember, this is how draft dodgers end up attacking combat veterans as soft in public and not being laughed out the room...

user-pic

Exactly.

During the primary I could understand why he didn't want to go after Hillary and was reduced to just responding to her attacks, but you're right - he really needs to start attacking McCain.

Agreed. Go on the attack please!!!!

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.

Concern troll is concerned. To sum up youre concerns: you're worried he's so weak that he'll invade Pakistan in an attempt to capture Osama?

He answered this back in March, by the way. To quote, again:

And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for terrorists who threaten America’s homeland and Pakistan’s stability. If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have belatedly – if tacitly – acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed, it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember that the same three individuals who now criticize me for supporting a targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, are the same three individuals that supported an invasion of Iraq – a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Hey...aren't all you "pumas" supposed to be busy raising money to get your bff Larry Sinclair out of jail?

I assume they've left him to rot and formed "PUMAUMA", or "Party Unity, My Ass" Unity, My Ass

user-pic


There is much of merit in you long post but also much I disagree with. Your criticisms of Obama are boilerplate at this point. I would like to respond to one of your several questions.

Yes. I believe that a terrorist has the right to a trial. The terrorist has this right because EVERYONE has this right. The principle is a basic requirement of FREEDOM for all. Your belief that a terrorist does not deserve a trial assumes that the arrested party is guilty. It is a basic tenet of our law that we assume innocence and prove guilt.

Holding a trial does not dimiss a terrorist from his crime. It proves that the person being tried committed the crime and then assesses the punishment. There is nothing radical or "bleeding heart liberal" about this principle.

I saw a wonderful film when I was a kid called "A Man for All Seasons" There is a scene I have never forgotten and I cut and paste its dialog here.


Sir Thomas More

-- What law has been broken.

William Roper

-- God's law!

Sir Thomas More

-- Then God can arrest him.

William Roper

-- While you talk, he's gone!

Sir Thomas More

-- Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.

William Roper

-- Now you give the Devil benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More

-- Yes, what would you do?

William Roper

-- Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

Sir Thomas More

-- And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...

...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast...

...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...

...and you're just the man to do it...

...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?

Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

This is precisely why Obama needs to attack McCain more...

Michelle, I agree with you in part that Obama SHOULD be fleshing out his policy positions in great detail and using that opportunity to contrast them with and define McCain's positions.

regarding your specific points:
* How would you find Osama bin Laden? What, specifically, would you do differently?
I would imagine the first thing would be to deal with whatever elements in the Pakistani leadership who HAVE NOT made a deal with the extremists in places like Waziristan in the NWFP to start developing more HUMINT resources would be a good idea. Flooding the region with armed drones to take out terrorist targets of opportunity (like training camps and fortresses) would be another.

* What would be the rules for capturing or killing Osama?
This is a straw man argument because most people would agree that it's most likely NOT possible to take him alive. He'll more than likely be surrounded by dozens of armed men loyal enough to die defending him. But if (like we did during the at tora bora in the afghan war) know where he's at and when he's there I'd say shooting to kill is more than acceptable. How many hellfire missiles does it take to get to the center of tootsie pop? What kind of rules are you looking for? If we have actual troops what are they going to do, read him the miranda rights??! get real. if he's in a hole in the ground like saddam, then he gets apprehended. more than likely he'd have to be dealt with like zarqawi or saddam's sons.

* How would you manage the consequences of the military incursion into Pakistan you've threatened? Are you willing to go to war with Pakistan?
The same way all the other killings/apprehensions of terrorists in pakistan (what few have occurred) were handled. When it doesn't endanger those on the ground being involved you get as much of the senior pakistani leadership involved as you can (remember this is a serious concern since so much of that leadership is sympathetic to the extremist cause particularly in the ISI and Army). Otherwise (like with the predator drone killings) you kill the terrorists if the opportunity is there and you have actionable intelligence. Fostering better relations with the democratic coalitions in the the country might not be a horrible idea either instead of just propping up a dictator who came to power in coup and may or may not have had a hand in the bhutto assassination...Also, I don't recall him saying he would invade the country though. I thought that's what neocons do!

* What would be the specific results of a swift troop withdrawal from Iraq?
I think the quote was 'we have to be as careful getting out of iraq as we were careless getting in'. Where does that suggest a swift withdrawal to you? Sounds more like explaining in no uncertain terms to the iraqi political leadership that we're going to leave, won't be there forever and then working out a way to do so that can maintain stability and security while also drawing down our troop levels so that we're not continuing on this unsustainable pace. I would imagine frank conversations with a military leadership that DOES NOT have the threat of early retirement hanging over it's head if it says what POTUS doesn't want to hear might go a long way to helping find some reasonable solutions as well! Besides, since when do you repubs care about the results of a military action? isn't all that policy talk for whimps? I thought real men went to tehran! ;D

* Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?
First, when has the judicial approach failed? Can you bring out examples of actual terrorists who went to court in the US who got off? As far as I can recall, they're rotting behind bars. We can debate if they should be executed on another post but the main point is that they aren't out plotting more attacks against us. This is also a bit of a straw man argument since the point is that you capture them however, whenever and wherever you can. But once they are in custody there's a difference of opinion as to how to treat them. There's the extraordinary rendition/torture crowd (which you seem to be a part of) and then there's the give them a trial/prove their guilt and then punish them (again valid arguments can be made for execution and against) crowd. This is closely related to the answer to your next question.

* Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?
Yet another straw man argument (what is it with repubs and straw men??!) since Obama and no one else is arguing that they get the same legal rights as citizens. What IS argued is that the basic rules of evidence and the ability to confront that evidence and your accusers in A TRIAL! be adhered to. How many of the detainees at Guantanamo have been put on trial and convicted in the past seven years? none. Obama is arguing that they have a trial and if found guilty then be punished. The nuremburg example comes into play because it shows that America is strong enough and secure enough in it's moral authority to give even the WORST of humanity a fair trial. We gave nazi war criminals a fair trial and when found guilty they were executed.

Are you suggesting that terrorists who kill American citizens deserve better? Are you afraid that if given a fair trial they might win?? I think it does America much more good to show that these are sick, demented people who are cold-blooded killers who should be punished without mercy. HOWEVER (and this is the critical part), in order to do so does not require us stooping to their level and destroying our country's constitutional and legal framework to do so! (This is also similar to Obama's argument for meeting with foreign leaders of country's we oppose: only someone who doesn't believe in America's strength would be worried about losing propaganda battles and moral authority to them...) Refusing to grant a fair trial and put the American system of justice on display for the world to see is a position of WEAKNESS not strength. We're better than that. We're better than concentration camps and indefinite detainment. We don't need shit like that to uphold liberty and protect our security! Striving to constantly improve and live up it's own ideals of freedom and justice is what has and will continue to make America great! Please don't shortchange our country, we can do better.


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.

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

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

***PREVIEW AND/OR EDIT, PLEASE!!***

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.........

user-pic

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.

user-pic


McCain has forgotten that less than a year ago Barack said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
McCain intentionally mis-represented Obama’s statement at that time, saying that Obama was planning to " to bomb a country that is a sovereign nation”.
Surprisingly, last August McCain was critical of the notion that a US president would bomb a sovereign nation. Given his statements regarding the sovereign nation of Iran and his stated desire for full military victory in the sovereign nation of Iraq, it seems he would support the (mistaken) notion that Obama would drop bombs in Pakistan in order to kill Osama Bin Laden.
Obama said, last year - "I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism."
McCain is predictably ingenuine in his ignorance of what Obama would do with Osama Bin Laden. His attack is the latest and most blatant example of what Obama has previously called a school-yard taunt. It is as pathetic as it is distressing.
Habeus Corpus is a basic building block in the development of the modern understanding of individual rights. It is a central tenet of the US Constitution. McCain’s disdain for the right of Habeus Corpus is further evidence that his would be a continuation of the Bush Administration. One need only look at his policy advisors – all alumni from the neo-con Project for the New American Century, architects of the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq – to understand that his maverick persona does nothing to derail the unilateral, militaristic approach to international relations that has produced our present dilemma.
Finally, McCain – hardass that he is – will kill Osama – as if with his own bare hands. Now, of course, the voters love a killer but other than the sport of it, what does this killing accomplish? If McCain truly believes that killing Osama solves any of our nation’s very serious problems, then he is further out of touch than I had realized.

"With my bare hands!!! I'll rip his head off and piss down the hole! I'll eat his babies! I'll take on an armored tank division! I'm John McCain!! RAAAAAAAAHHHHRRRR!!!!"

user-pic

But, but the 9 foot tall islamo-fascists don't have a tank division. They don't need one. We should all be shaking in our boots and pissing our pants because of some kooks holed up in a freaking cave on the border between pakistan and afghanistan. Can you imagine if the mentality of the us under FDR was like this?????? We'd all be speaking german. Pathetic.

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

Look, John McCain was crashing planes into things way before Al Qaeda thought of it. If he says he's gonna kill the guy, watch out.

user-pic

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.


Oh, bull puckey. McCain will never, never, never never never catch or kill Bin Laden. He's too convenient as a boogey man. He's Goldstein from 1984, basically, and McCain is O'Brien, and the rest of the country is Smith. Or that's how it'll be if McCain wins, anyway. "We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."

Yes, yes, I get it. McCain will kill Osama Bin Laden if he's president. Old news. Every president will kill Bin Laden. That's just meat and potatoes in the new America.

What I would like to know, and the American people deserve to know, is how he will kill Bin Laden.

Will John McCain reach into Osama's chest and pull out his still beating heart?

Will John McCain cut of Osama's head and shove it up his ass?

Will John McCain drink Osama's blood?

Before I am convinced that he is tough and insane enough to be our President, I need to know that he is willing do all of those things.

I ask you Senator McCain, are you for or against drinking Osama Bin Laden's blood?

user-pic

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.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address