I am not sure I get this guy.  Obama seems to be all over the map about several issues.

But his wildest yet is his promise to both talk and attack.

In the debates Obama took a lot of heat for suggesting that he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, something fellow contender Hillary took exception with.

As did a lot of people.

But now, hold on to your hats, he wants to invade Pakistan.

Obama: I’ll Hunt Down Terrorists in Pakistan

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

He sounds almost…err…Republican in this.  After all, Bush believing that Iraq was harboring terrorists and that Terrorists were training in Iraq, invaded Iraq.

Obama who has criticized the Iraq war apparently prefers a Pakistani war instead?

Interesting…

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, Allie Is Wired, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pink Flamingo, Planck’s Constant, Stuck On Stupid, Wyvern Dreams, Conservative Cat, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

First up: OJ’s book was tacky. Period.

Second: OJ is an arrogant jerk. Period.

O.J. Simpson Criticizes Goldman Family

O.J. Simpson lashed out Tuesday at the family of the late Ronald Goldman, a day after they won the rights to Simpson’s canceled “If I Did It” book about the slayings of Goldman and Simpson’s ex-wife.

A federal bankruptcy judge in Miami awarded the book rights to Goldman’s family Monday to satisfy a $38 million wrongful death judgment against Simpson.

“I find it sort of hypocritical that they talked everybody in America to boycott the book: it was ‘immoral,’ it was ‘blood money,’” he told interviewer Kate Delaney. “But we now see it wasn’t ‘blood money’ if they got the money.”

God I hate this, but in a sense he is right.  The book profits, were there actually any, would be the tackiest form of blood money.

Granted, OJ doesn’t deserve a penny of it, but in a sense, aside from showing what an ass OJ is, all this really does is showcase the depths of Fred Goldman’s hatred and his terrier like determination to squeeze every penny out of OJ.

Goldman attorney David Cook said his clients were justified in accepting rights to the book as payment for the judgment against Simpson.

“Mr. Simpson himself has placed us in this horrific setting of seeking to liquidate this asset,” he said. “His comments are beyond redemption.”

Again, I won’t argue about Goldman’s right to the money, but honestly, would you want it considering the source?

Some thoughts:

I agree the OJ case was in some ways a slam of the legal system, but it is supposed to be a justice system that operates under rules, one of which is that those not convicted are presumed innocent.

It may be a slap in the face that OJ was acquitted, but he was.  OJ, like it or not, was found not guilty.  There were actually a couple valid issues in the trial to support an acquittal, though it was still a shock.  We had tainted blood evidence, witnesses committing perjury and frankly a lot of weak circumstantial evidence.