Romney’s Tough Talk About Pakistan CrossRoads, posted by Cindy Cross, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Oct 3, 2011 at 10:08 pm Cindy Cross is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Romney’s Tough Talk About Pakistan by Cindy Cross
While talking to a crowd in New Hampshire today, Mitt Romney talked tough about Pakistan by asking, “Listen guys, you can't play both sides of this game. You've got to decide if you're with us or with them. If you're with them, that will have a very significant consequence. If you're with us, that's very good thing."
Romney didn’t elaborate about what he meant with ‘significant consequences.’
Romney’s comments come from recent news that the Pakistani government is complicit in their stance towards terrorists. The porous boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan has resulted in a safe haven for the Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives.
It is no secret that Pakistan openly harbors terrorists. Not just the bottom rung yes-men in terrorist groups, but the head of the snake leaders of Al-Qaida; leaders named Osama Bin Laden.
Pakistan was outraged that we went into their country without prior permission to take out Bin Laden, and went so far as to accuse us of betraying their sovereignty.
If Romney is elected, will he pull all funding away from Pakistan? Billions in aid goes to Pakistan every year, money that could go into America’s infrastructure; infrastructure that could generate jobs here where we need them.
Is Romney really serious about his statement? Is this more political posturing? Posturing to help boost Romney’s image as a tough, future Commander in Chief? If so, what will he do compared to President Obama’s strategy of doing nothing with Pakistan.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Oct 5, 2011 at 10:04 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
This modern mindless missive from Cindy Cross is full of logical holes. But we don't have to worry about getting a response from Cindy defending her opinions, she is incapable of doing so.
Cindy Cross actually adds nothing to the Huffington Post and AP stories on this statement from Romney. When Cindy attempts to opine, she comes up with this: "It is no secret that Pakistan openly harbors terrorists. Not just the bottom rung yes-men in terrorist groups, but the head of the snake leaders of Al-Qaida; leaders named Osama Bin Laden"
Cindy Cross believes that Pakistan openly harbored bin Laden? Wait, it gets even less intelligent. She says Pakistan accused the US of 'betraying' their sovereignty. Cindy, the term is violating, and when spelling the name of the former head of Al Qaeda, the 'b' is not capitalized.
The US did, indeed, violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, if the publicly told story of the DEVGRU team flying in from Afghanistan without the approval of Pakistan is how the killing of bin Laden went down.
The last two short paragraphs of Cindy's punditry are nothing less than pablum. What is Cindy's point here? That withholding aid would be different from Obama's strategy? Because that is incorrect. Web Link
That the billions still going to Pakistan should stay here? Does that make the US CinC look tough? I cannot speculate, as this is nonsense. I understand more clearly, with every spectacularly sad statement from Cindy Cross, the PW needs bloggers, they really do need new bloggers.
Posted by Billie, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Oct 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm Billie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I sincerely hope that any bloggers Ms. Channell-Allen adds to the Town Square are Tri-Valley writers who, like Cindy Cross, are able to express their opinion about current events, politics and politicians without making, or responding in kind, to personal attacks from posters who disagree with their position.
It’s unfortunate that so many regular participants on this forum seem to be more interested in belittling and ridiculing the poster/blogger who expresses an opinion with which they do not agree, than actually sharing their opinion on the thread subject.
Stacey was right on the money in her March 2011 thread entitled “Concerted Effort to Silence Free Speech”. I join her in stating unequivocally that this type of activity should not be welcome here, and urge anyone truly interested in “engaging in a real and honest debate” to take another look at her posting. Web Link