Wednesday, August 15, 2007

More Pakistani reaction to Obama's American "exceptionalism"

"Any transgression of the accepted parameters would be unacceptable and would damage the interests between the two countries,'' Tasnim Aslam, the Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman, was quoted as saying at a briefing in Islamabad.

On Monday, Pakistani protesters shouted slogans against Obama outside a Chicago fundraiser organized by South Asian backers.

I still stand bewildered. But maybe the clues were there all along. I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for some statements made to the press in the past. After all, politicians have many comments on the record that they make on the fly. Sometimes they say things that don't really reflect their stands on issues or that can be interpreted in such a way.

Now the article in Foreign Affairs was another matter but it was vaguely worded. It mentions intervention to stop some forms of nuclear proliferation involving North Korea and Iran but without specifics. Would it be a UN sanctioned action? Would these countries be transferring nuclear weapons to organizations internationally recognized as terrorist?

The Pakistan statements were crystal clear though and reiterated afterward by the campaign.

Sorry to say, but Obama's foreign policy doesn't look much different than the Bush Doctrine now. There's the idea there that America is exceptional in that it doesn't have to abide by the same rules that it expects other nation's to follow. That won't work in today's world.

1 comment:

Road To Top 100 said...

"I still stand bewildered. But maybe the clues were there all along. I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for some statements made to the press in the past. After all, politicians have many comments on the record that they make on the fly. Sometimes they say things that don't really reflect their stands on issues or that can be interpreted in such a way."

Have you been watching too much Fox news lately? Be specific about which comments your talking about. Are they the ones about talking to opposing foreign leaders? Or the ones about not using nuclear weapons? Which ones?

"Now the article in Foreign Affairs was another matter but it was vaguely worded. It mentions intervention to stop some forms of nuclear proliferation involving North Korea and Iran but without specifics. Would it be a UN sanctioned action?"

Did you not watch the CNN debates? Obama supports UN sanctioned actions.


"Sorry to say, but Obama's foreign policy doesn't look much different than the Bush Doctrine now. There's the idea there that America is exceptional in that it doesn't have to abide by the same rules that it expects other nation's to follow. That won't work in today's world."

Please log into youtube and watch lovingj1's videos. In one of them you see Hillary saying the same thing about taking out terrorist forces if the Pakistan government refuses to.

Your not looking at the big picture here. You need to step back for a few seconds and try to look at the big picture with an objective point of view. I know you feel offended with the recent Pakistan comments but please look beyond the words.

Bill Clinton was the one that didn't take out the terrorist when he had a chance. Are you suggesting this was a good move by him?

How can you even compare Bush with Obama...

So who do you support now? Clinton? Edwards? Romney?

Popular Posts