Update: Obama: Calls for Unilateral War Against Pakistan

I can't believe what I just read.  Barack Obama, in an effort to make himself look tough against Hillary Clinton, announced that he would unilaterally send troops to Pakistan to expand the War on Terror.

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_terrorism

 This follows up on something he said in 2004, when he suggested that he would support launching missles against Pakistan and Iran to prevent extremists from getting nuclear weapons.

Who's acting like Bush now?

For me the most disturbing part is that he is calling not for an international coalition or increased assistance to the Pakistani government, but for a military invasion of a sovereign nation.

Barack Obama called the invasion of Iraq a "stupid war." How is this smarter? Aren't there better options than sending an already-stretched military into a hostile nation with a moderate government?

Think of how empowering such an invasion would be to Iran. The US has toppled regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Obama plan to invade Pakistan went into play, that would be three nations bordering Iran that would be thrown into a state of civil war and chaos.

I've always praised the Obama of 2002 who opposed the build-up to war and invasion of Iraq. But I have been highly critical of him since. And his current stance on Pakistan has me deeply worried. Especially since he's even more hawkish than Bush on the issue.

Update II:

Let's talk about some important facts.

*1. Pakistan is a US Ally* *2. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. A US invasion could put those weapons into the hands of the terrorists we want to get.* *3. We don't have the military capacity to do this.* Update III:

The Obama campaign must have gotten it's talking points to the Obama listserv. Notice how his followers are all using the same points that all Americans support getting Osama. They are trying to change the debate from a de facto war against Pakistan to a police action against one person. US troops going into Pakistan means war. It just does, people.



Display:


A terrible mistake by his strategists (2.71 / 7)

Wow, Obama is following my precise prediction if you recall. I said a couple of days ago he might give a 'major foreign policy speech' in order to battle Hillary's perceived strength.

Here we go. However, I believe the content of this speech is a huge tactic mistake. His message is so confused these days. In the past few days, he has visibilly taken a sharp left turn. But this speech is not welcome news for liberal wing of democratic party. People will start to doubt his sincerity because his foreign policy has a 360 degree turn over the past few days. Willing to sit down with Iranian president without 'preconditions', willing to strike inside Pakistan without 'permission' of a frendly ally? This is getting bizarre.

Obama needs to find a new strategist sooner rather than later. He is in deep hole. LOL.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:43:34 AM EST

Re: A terrible mistake by his strategists (3.00 / 2)

I don't agree with you often, but I think you are correct here.  He tacks to the left and then tacks to the right.  In a diary in January, I called it his "method of moderation." Bobs and weaves so you don't know where he really stands, all while selling a cult of personality.

While I disagree with many stands on the issues by Senator Clinton, I do feel I know where she stands more.


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mr. LOL and TomP agree, wow (none / 0)

Surprise, surprise.. Edwards and Clinton Surrogates gangs up on Obama... . What are you guys afraid of? I thought Obama was fading and on his last throes if you believe that just ignore him.

Obama has been consistent on this. He has a better worldview than Clinton and Edwards will ever have in their life experiences and being in the United States Senate.

This is Good news for Obama because the more the so-called netroots like you hate Obama the better chance he has for the nomination, ask John Kerry.

Obama did not say he will unilaterally attack Pakistan but I guess as a supporter of the bender of the truth, the fasts absolutely means nothing. Or would either of you please show me where he said that he will unilaterally attack Pakistan? I think not.

Obama has it just right.


by ameri on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How's this for a fact? (3.00 / 3)

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_terrorism


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How's this for a fact? (3.00 / 1)

"an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan"

This might go down as the understatement of the year.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:25:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Desperate Move- Edwards BIGGEST Beneficiary (3.00 / 2)

I don't know what made him decide to throw this major foreign policy twist. ( it looks & smells as a major tactical move to match Hillary Clinton)

But I predict that this will really hurt Obama among many core Democrats who are currently supporting him or were considering to support him.

Redeploying our troops from Iraq to another Muslim country? Invading another country?

This pretty much goes opposite what 99% of Democrats & the overwhelming majority of American voters want- "sending our fighting men & women home".

I predict Edwards is going to be the BIGGEST beneficiary of this BLUNDER & you will see polls in the next 7-14 days show an Obama DROP of support. Terrible move!


by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You attack and attack and (3.00 / 3)

pose as anti-war, and then you support the invasion of a sovereign nation with nucleur weapons.

If Obama says it, it's okay.  No consistency.  It is not about issues at all.

I catagorically reject Obama's hawkish call for war.  


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You attack and attack and (3.00 / 2)

Obama doesn't have supporters, he has followers. You have it right, If Obama says it's ok then it is.

I knew the lemmings would hop on board.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama says yes, you say yes??? LOL (3.00 / 1)

" If Obama says its ok, its ok. You are his follower, not just a supporter"???? :)

Did saying that make you feel real good & proud of yourself?

Well it may have made you circle the wagons but your idol just made a Huge Mistake.

Your "movement" will continue but this thing is over.

If Obama had an "R" in front of his name, that's a different story. The guy forgot that he is Democrat. LOL


by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More on Obama's position. (none / 0)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_terrorism

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted -- 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.

snip

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A terrible mistake by his strategists (3.00 / 1)

Taylor Marsh covered this in a recent post.

Check it out.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25992


by lonnette33 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama copies Edwards - again! (none / 0)

As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions in weak and failing states that can become hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/terror ism/

Edwards plan of 10,000 PROFESSIONALS is superior to Obama's thousands of "young people."


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you mean 180 degree turn ... (3.00 / 1)

... or do you mean he has gone full circle, back to where he started.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pakistan has been a major breeding ground (none / 0)

for terrorists along with Afghanistan.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This diary with its BULLSHIT title (3.00 / 1)

has been responded to by Geekesque indirectly. Please see my myDD crossposting: What Obama actually said about fighting terrorism (Cross Post).


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This diary with its BULLSHIT title (2.00 / 2)

"has been responded to by Geekesque indirectly"

So who the fuck is he and why should I care?


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This diary with its BULLSHIT title (none / 0)

He is a poster on Kos.


by Ajsmom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A terrible mistake by his strategists (none / 0)

Obama isn't much of a chess player, it would appear. Clinton just checkmated him on foreign policy. She implied he was weak. So he moves to look aggressive and robust. Now he's angered the doves and make his "Bush lite" Comment seem rather hypocritical.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (none / 0)

recommended.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:44:38 AM EST

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 3)

Obama seems to vacilate between pointing out his 2002 speech opposed to the Iraq Invasion and acting more hawkish than Hillary.

It reflects my fundamental problem with him.  Other than ambition, what does he really believe?

This kind of war-like talk is bad.  


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:44:55 AM EST

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 2)

Even the crazies right winger such as Bush-Cheney and freepers will not advocate such crazy things.
It is just bizarre.
Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd love to see (none / 0)

an Edwards press release with the word "sabre ratlling" in it!!


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards benefits the most (3.00 / 1)

With this major blunder, Edwards should benefit the most.

He should attract many of Obama's supporters. Those who are " Anybody but Hillary" Democrats.

What a Major mistake.

He'll probably spend the next several months just trying to EXPLAIN & DEFEND his position instead of focusing on other issues.


by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is Hillary (none / 0)

preparing a statement with the word "naive" about 50 times?


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary (none / 0)

I think both Hillary and Edwards would be better advised to stay away from it and let Obama explain what he meant by his statements. I am not sure Obama is thick-skinned enough yet to take criticism. He would go ballistic if anyone else hears criticism from either one.


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Hillary (none / 0)

Sorry. That should be "if he hears criticism from either one".


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (none / 0)

You hit the nail on the head. Obama is a hypocrite, plan and simple.


by lonnette33 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:53:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting position. (3.00 / 3)

Does this mean he is finding steam - or is the truth coming out - maybe it's because he is really a war hawk.

All that talk about being against the Iraq war and the puff up about his never being for it position, seems to fade into the sunset (even though he was on record of saying that he didn't have the same information at the time and didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the congress at the time).

Obama - the new war hawk on the block?

Interesting to ponder indeed.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:49:21 AM EST

He did imply he is for 'smart' wars. (3.00 / 1)

So this would be an example of what he thinks of as a smart war.

Really truly ... I have seen the clip, something like, "I am not against all wars, but I am against stupid wars".


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did imply he is for 'smart' wars. (3.00 / 2)

This is Exhibit A as an example of a dumb war.

We now have a sitting US Senator and Presidential candidate threatening the invasion of an ally, albeit an ally with problems.  


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, not an invasion. An intervention. (3.00 / 1)

There is a difference ... with an intervention, we have to make sure that the cost exceeds the benefits up front, because the plan is to scram after the damage has been done. The proposal to go into Pakistan with guns blazing would seem to qualify.

Indeed, I expect that Obama will stick to the policy but claim that it is not war, but a police action, so that he can say, "I said I was against stupid wars, but I love stupid police actions".


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoa. (3.00 / 2)

Ok, where'd all this man's good judgement go?

Crossing that border without an invite would seal the downfall of moderate West-friendly forces in Pakistan. We'd see an escalation of anti-American sentiment in nuclear Pakistan faster than you can say, "dumb war."


by Leslie H on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:51:58 AM EST

the current government (3.00 / 2)

which has had numerous assasination attempts would fall.

Radicals would take over.

Politically this is really blurring the difference between Hillary.

Regardless of the strategic validity - politically it's dumb.

YOu can't be anti-war while promoting invasion of Pakistan


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Senator Clinton (3.00 / 2)

If I were senator Clinton or Edwards, I would jump on this. I would politely point out I disagree with Senator Obama's strategy regarding Pakistan.

This is an even worse mistake than last week's skirmish by Obama campaign, IMHO. They are under pressure, and that's exactly when you usually make big mistake.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:52:56 AM EST

Re: Senator Clinton (3.00 / 1)

It may come down to Edwards v. Clinton.  Moderate v. progressive populist.  I think that will be good for the party.  


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:54:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator Clinton (none / 0)

If I were Clinton and Edwards, I would call this development "irresponsible an naive."    :-)


by georgep on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator Clinton (none / 0)

LOL


by lonnette33 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:54:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator Clinton (none / 0)

lol you might be perceived as a racist!


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 3)

I think every Americans including Pakistan authorities, will agree that Osama is hiding in the moutains in this country and tribes men are protecting him from getting captured....

I see no problem in taking the fight to ALQeada...The public has a problem with the war in Iarq since they had nothing to do with 9-11, but i sincerily dont think how the message of "killing osama bin laden" will hurt Obama unless you believe that we should forget about Osama and just hope he's not planning another 9-11.

Obama had always stated he wasnt "anti-war" but he was "anti-dumb-war"...War on Iraq was dumb...Striking terrorist camps in Aghanistan is smart move and will gain him credit for at least not acting like 'war on terror' is just a bumper sticker and doesnt exist.


by JaeHood on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:54:17 AM EST

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 3)

And this would not be a dumb war?

It would alienate all Islamic nations.


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:54:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

aren't we already "alienated" from most of these countries?  these countries told BUSH don't invade Iraq.  they were behind us for Afghanistan but strongly told us, do not go into Iraq.  Did we listen?  now we are looking for allies?  now talking to syria, iran?  this is so after the fact, does it matter?  we have botched this up so far, we can't even pick up a phone and "call an ally".  none of these countries want nothing to do with this, because be alientated everyone, what is the use?  yes, to regain any traction, we must have hard talks, with folk that have more "open minds" to negotiate, but this will come with the next administration, AFTER BUSH.  i am looking forward to this speech, indeed.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:04:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

are you justifying invading another sovereign nation? And one that has allowed the US great latitude for operations in Pakistan? Unilateralism flies in the face of Obama's diplomacy strategy.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

if we cause an islamicist coup in Pakistan- its WW3. seriously. Nukes israel, gives bomb to al-qaeda, nukes india.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iceber, Nothing wrong with Admitting a mistake (none / 0)

Iceberlism,

There are times when one has to " Take off their blinders".

Just like Jaehood, you two are rabid supporters of Mr. Obama. But when something major like this develop, you have to STOP the PR moves & admit the Blunder.

You loss your credibility fast when you blindly support someone when all signs point to a terribly mistake.

If Hillary Clinton or John Edwards made this speech today, YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE to criticize them & go nuts.

Even if your idol Obama had an "R" next to his name, this announcement would be met by ridicule by many Republicans who are just as sick of this war. But its 10 times worst because Obama is a Democrat.

Com'on now, your idol made a major blunder & you can stop trying to justify it.

I could see you going nuts if it was Hillary Clinton who made this proposal today instead of your idol Obama.


by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 2)

I agree that some action would make sense, but it's the conditions he places that worry me.  Unless Musharaff does what I ask, I will push to invade his country.  Yes, because US troops would be welcomed with open arms.  Get the pun?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will say (3.00 / 1)

that he's not calling for an invasion. Just targeted strikes, with missiles.

But again there's a reason why Bush-Cheney hasn't done this, and I don't think it's because they're beholden to Musharraf.


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (none / 0)

Hey, Vox, guess what?  Your diary has been picked up by the LA Times!  Check it out.  It's under 'this headline and posting' halfway down the page.

Congratulations, sort of.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice (3.00 / 4)

slight of hand. We're talking about Pakistan, and all of sudden you slip this in:

Striking terrorist camps in Aghanistan is smart move

We're talking about Pakistan, a soveriegn country, with a leader holding tenuously to power, a leader who's survived assassination attempts by Muslim radicals. There's reason that not even Bush-Cheney sent troops into northern Pakistan, because it's aboslute quicksand, a web of tribes and thousands of people who are sympathetic to Bin Laden. And because it would possibly hand the country over to AQ type radicals.


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:59:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (none / 0)

This is childish. As president, you don't talk what you might or might not do to such a hypothetical question. This sort of speech is insane.

This is a pure poll-driven speech. He is under pressure, make no mistake.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's Dumbass War (3.00 / 1)

War on Iraq WAS dumb. War on Pakistan is Fucking STUPID.

Any anti-war credentials Obama had just went out the door. Is he running for the Republican nomination?

He is out Liebermaning Lieberman.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:02:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Dumbass War (none / 0)

Totally agree DoIT.  

Where have you been?  I missed your Hillary support and "in your face" comments.


by lonnette33 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Dumbass War (none / 0)

I have to take a break every now and then. But this latest episode has my juices stewing.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:13:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the pro-smart-war confirmation. (none / 0)

I was sure that was what he meant ... that he's a hawk, in favor of war in general, but simply against the Iraq invasion itself as a particularly ill-considered war to get into.

And now we have a clearer idea of the kind of smart wars that he favors.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lemming warmongers (none / 0)

"I see no problem in taking the fight to ALQeada"

Well then sign right up today and volunteer to do just that.

"Obama had always stated he wasnt "anti-war" but he was "anti-dumb-war""

It's a shame Obama isn't anti-stupid war too.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: JaeHood, Sometimes you have to Admit! (none / 0)

Jaehood,

There are times when one has to " Take off their blinders".

You loss your credibility fast when you blindly support someone when all signs point to a terribly mistake.

If Hillary Clinton or John Edwards made this speech today, YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE to criticize them & go nuts.

Even if your idol Obama had an "R" next to his name, this announcement would be met by ridicule by many Republicans who are just as sick of this war. But its 10 times worst because Obama is a Democrat.

Com'on now, your idol made a major blunder & you can stop trying to justify it.

There is enough comedy in MYDD. LOL


by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't believe this (3.00 / 3)

This would quite possibly destablize Pakistan and lead to a fundamentalist takeover of the country. A country with nukes. Yeah, that's the way to get Bin Laden: give nukes to his allies.


by david mizner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:54:20 AM EST

Re: I can't believe this (none / 0)

Who knows if he had not already?  Why trust Mushariff?  He has been a dubious player, from day one.  Says one thing, and does another.  And all this largely to bad diplomatic policies with Pakistan and not putting our foot down from the get go.  We could have had bin Laden in 2005, knew where he at, and let him get away and slip into Pakistan.  That is where he is at, we know it.  Are we going to get him?  Probably, not.  We have been overplayed in the Middle East from day one.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't believe this (3.00 / 2)

Bush is a strong proponent of unilateral war as well.  I don't even hear Clinton making the claim that we should invade Pakistan.  We can't afford an invasion, financially or materially.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't believe this (none / 0)

i want to hear the whole speech or read the text first.  we can't even win in iraq, forget pakistan.  the only thing we can get from pakistan is an agreement to snatch bin laden and be done with it.  but war, highly questionable indeed.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re Iceberg, If Hillary gave this speech??? (none / 0)

Iceberg,

If Hillary Clinton gave this speech today instead of Obama, would you be reacting the way you are now?

Would you ask to read the text of the speech? Would you desperately trying to justify why an attack on Pakistan may make sense.

Com'on! You would all over Clinton!

This is the problem when supporters start going blind. You cannot Idolize politicians. LOL


by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to update your diary (none / 0)

with some important Factsl Pakistan is not Iraq NOR Afghanistan.

1.pakistan is a pro-american regime/dictatorship that very quickly would turn islamic radical  (regimes in afghanistan and Iraq were anti-american

2.  PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS which would fall into a radical islamic government's hands.

3.  An air strike is unlikely to be successful.  We couldn't get Bin laden in similar terrain and Saddam in a flat country with missile strikes.   It's "naive" to think we can get rid of thousands of taliban/al qaeda with air strikes.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Intentionally misleading and fraudulent title (none / 0)

This is what Obama said, "

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
and I agree with him 100%. Where did he call for a unilateral war against Pakistan?


by ameri on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intentionally misleading and fraudulent title (none / 0)

In your quote, he just said it doesn't matter what the president of Pakistan says, he will take action.  Unilateral means "alone" or "without support of others."  And yes, it would mean war with Pakistan.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intentionally misleading and fraudulent title (none / 0)

No, it means if Mushareff does act, we won't.


by horizonr on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intentionally misleading and fraudulent title (none / 0)

Pervez Musharraff does not have a lot of latituted right now in Pakistan.  He has to think about keeping his country together.  Having the US take unilateral action in Pakistan will only further destabilize Pakistan.

This has to be done with a velvet glove, not a "you're with us or against us" talking point.  Frankly, Obama's foreign policy is looking more naive and more irresponsible with these comments.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intentionally misleading and fraudulent title (none / 0)

Just as Obama's debate response was a gesture of willingness -- not an ironclad promise -- to meet with certain
leaders, I suspect that Obama is using parts of this speech to show what he understands may be necessary and
what he is therefore willing to do, if very specific circumstances dictate, to eliminate terrorist threats to America.


by horizonr on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (none / 0)

Look, the War is with the ones who killed us on 9/11.  I want to hear and read the whole speech.  Pakistan, shit, we have let them hide bin Laden, we have.  We have turned a blind eye.  Now look at Afghinstan, that shit is cropping up so high now with terrorists it is not even funny.  I am not for war with Pakistan, but WTF?  This is a twist, indeed.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:55:00 AM EST

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 0)

You are right to hear the statement in context, it is impressive. It is part of a careful and effective takedown on Bush and the way he has conducted this war, but it is also a tough declaration to go after our enemies...the real ones. His preconditions are precise--"actionable intelligence," "the refusal of Musharif to act". Obama is signalling that under certain circumstances he will rise to the occassion of protecting the American people from another attack. He is not talking about a preemptive or unilateral war against a country, he is talking about specifically going after the people who pose a real threat. He is wise not to let someone paint him as some hippy peacenik who will not fight under any circumstance. The full context is running on MSN. I bet people will find his statement reasonable and clear, unlike the sputtering going on in here.


by jazzyjay on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (none / 0)

a unilateral strike in Pakistan will flare up much more anti-US sentiment in the Middle East than the screw ups GWB has in Iraq.  Pakistan is much more moderate than other countries in the Area, and even if it was just a unilateral strike, Musharraff's government will fall.

There does not have to be a war with Pakistan in order for the fall out to be astronomical.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I actually agree with his statement (1.00 / 1)

Maybe Barry is growing a backbone ... or maybe Axlerod is paying for better scripts.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:00:48 AM EST

Re: I actually agree with his statement (none / 0)

I can't believe his DC losing strategists would okay such an insane speech. It will only damage his chance in both primaries and general.

This is really weird.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He has to move towards the center on security (none / 0)

And hope the peace at any price doves he has attracted will go along for the ride.  It is the only way he is going to expand his level of support.  Its all about the math.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

No. I disagree with your analysis. He's not going to peel off mainstream Clinton support. But this speech alone will doom his chance among many Edwards supporters who may have to choose between Clinton and Obama in the end.

I believe it's the biggest strategic mistake by his campaign so far.

In terms of striking within Pakistan, as a responsible president, you do not talk what you might or might not do to such a sesentive and hypothetical question. You don't rule anything out or anything in. This is just bizarre and dumb from foreign policy angle.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it is a very (none / 0)

poor move on his part.  He destroys any anti-war credentials.  But Clinton has the support of moderate hawks. He will not get them. And the neo-cons don't vote Democrat.  

Assuming it is not just political, that he believes this is even worse.  It betrays a willingness to engage American forces too easily.  It rejects everything he said in 2002.  It betrays a true lack of judgment.

It does explain the vote against Kerry-Feingold and lack of leadership on ending the war.  


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cognitive Dissonance (none / 0)

his messsage is so confusing.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:31:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you calling Obama insane? Why MyDD (none / 0)

allow you here baffles me. You are so full of hate. Are you saying now that Obama is afflicted with or characteristic of mental derangement?


by ameri on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You attribue and accuse (3.00 / 1)

all who disagree with Barack Obama to "
hate" or "subliminal racism." You are wrong.

This is a bad policy.  It is dangerous.


by TomP on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:24:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I actually agree with his statement (none / 0)

Definitely in the primaries.  Obama must be losing it to not just alienate a sizeable Democratic consituency which is decidedly anti-war, but also undermining his own dovish talk that he was anti-war while his opponents voted for the Iraq war.  


by georgep on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:49:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

That is a naive statement. There is a reason that even Bush/Cheney did not unilaterally go into Pakistan. The chances of destabilizing the whole region are very high. Mind you it is a country with nuclear weapons. They might threaten to use it against their neighbors if any other country unilaterally attacks them. It is a question of their national pride. I can't beleive we are trading one stupid foreign policy for another.


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:14:17 AM EST

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

Also, don't forget the possibilities of them fighting a guerilla war against us from those mountains. Why do you think the Soviets retreated from Afghanistan in 80s?


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:16:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

An unstable Pakistan with nukes is a direct threat to India who has nukes too. This policy is just stupid.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:34:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Most Misleading Diary Title Ever! (3.00 / 1)

"War with Pakistan"? Were did you get that?

Taking out Bin Laden should be the number one priority of any President. If we know where he is and Pakistan will not act then we sure as hell should.

Cruise missile and smart bombs do not equate to a war. Don't you remember Clinton did this in Afghanistan? Did anyone call that a war?

Please, you're spinning so hard your head is going to pop off.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:20:30 AM EST

Re: Most Misleading Diary Title Ever! (none / 0)

Did you read the article? They are discussing invasion of Pakistan.


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

did you read Obama's speech.? (none / 0)

Even air strikes would be his second choice.

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. "


by JoeCoaster on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is is.... (none / 0)

Advanced Excerpts of Obama's Speech

That AP article is waaaaay off base.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:29:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is is.... (none / 0)

That is much better than sending ground troops. Any idea why AP is reporting that he will be sending group troops for invasion?


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did you read Obama's speech.? (none / 0)

Air strikes is fine. When you talk of sending our troops unauthorized into Pakistan without their permission you are risking another guerilla war. You don't take out troops from one guerilla war and start another one. You will destabilize more regions. We will be stuck there for a long time if we plan on our troops being there until Bin Laden is caught. Spying is okay, but ground troops is a really bad idea. They will be sitting ducks inviting ambush attacks just like in Iraq.


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did you read Obama's speech.? (none / 0)

AIR STRIKES ARE NOT FINE!

This isnt an "Iraq no fly zone" situation.

Any action in Pakistan by the US in a unilateral basis will be disastrous.  Threatening Unilateral action is NAIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE.

Musharraff has VERY little political oxygen left in his country.  Pakistan has a lot of moderates, but it also has a lot of radicals. Destabilization of the Government (WHICH IS WHAT UNILATERAL ACTION WILL DO) is a horrible idea.

Whether you are talking about Smart bombs, an invasion, or air strikes, the fallout by any action without the consent of the Pakistani military will be disastrous. Suggesting anything contrary is a failed policy and will do NOTHING to bring the rest of the nations to have a favorable opinion on the US. Further alienation will just hurt the US on all fronts.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama now appear to have the upper hand (none / 0)

from reading all these emotional rants and comments posted here this morning. The enemies are afraid so they vent.


by ameri on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:21:07 AM EST

Re: Obama now appear to have the upper hand (none / 0)

I'm not sure who you think the enemy is but I am an American citizen and I support the Constitution.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:58:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama now appear to have the upper hand (none / 0)

Sorry if people have a better understanding of world politics and the implications of a disastrous policy  than you do Ameri


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Unilateral War With Pakistan (3.00 / 1)

This Diary is hardly credible.  You twist Obama's words to mean something he did not say.  A vociferous Edwards supporter and a rabid HRC supporter gang up and bash away...

It frequently seems like you people have forgotten that we are all going to need to support a nominee starting next spring.  Please tone down your rhetoric.  Saying that we need to strike at Osama if possible is hardly a radical, hawkish position.  Pointing out that Bush took his eye off the ball in Afganistan and Pakistan is the coreect position substantively and politically.


by upper left on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:21:35 AM EST

surprise (none / 0)

I'm surpried this has not been put on dailykos yet.

They are always slow to react.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:25:21 AM EST

Wow (3.00 / 1)

Troll diary.


by faithfull on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:31:09 AM EST

Re: Wow (3.00 / 1)

You're telling me that Obama calling for an invasion of Pakistan isn't news or worthy of discussion?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:34:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Except he is'nt (3.00 / 2)

and you know it ..

Obama's Speech

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. 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 Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."


by JoeCoaster on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:54:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

shocking diary and comments (3.00 / 1)

Wow people will argue about anything!

SO, let me get this straight: if we have good information Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan border AND Musharraf won't do anything (pretty much the scenario since September 11- it is highly likely this is the case) we do not I repeat do not think we should go in and get him?

Are we mad? Are you guys for real?

I realize we all support different candidates but this seems like something we could all agree on.

I am interpreting only the above quoted paragraph not the entire speech.

Being hawkish is when you go to war for no good reason and when you support a war for no good reason and you support increased military spending for no good reason.

When you have evidence that the person responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on September 11 is hiding somewhere and you go after him I don't think thats hawkish. I think thats common sense.


by lafinur on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:39:16 AM EST

Re: shocking diary and comments (none / 0)

You know I am actually not entirely sure he is wrong on the substance of it , I will actually be in favour of unilateral action in terms of airstrike , no ground troops if that is what he is saying . What I have a problem with is how you say you don't want " Bush - Cheney lite " last week and turn around in one week and make this kind of pronouncement which in his words can be regarded as "Bush - Cheney lite". He wanted to sound like Kucinich last week and now he wants to sound like Hillary this week. Thats what you get when you are trying to score political points and you are not sincere with your beliefs , his position last week was exactly Hillary's position and he is that type of politician , his track record doesn't show someone that will meet dictators without precondition.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:50:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: shocking diary and comments (3.00 / 1)

How is this Bush Cheney lite?

Bush Cheney have done nothing to find Osama! This is the opposite of Bush Cheney lite! Or are you conceding Bush Cheney has been trying to find Osama and their domestic opponents have not?

If anyone is not being politically sincere its you! You are drawing comparisons where they don't exist!

As I wrote, I think we can all agree that we should get Osama. That is very different from going to needless wars.

And saying you would be willing to meet with dictators does not mean that if you know a mass murderer of Americans is hiding in Pakistan with the tacit approval of Musharraf that you don't go after him.

I mean common sense Lori.


by lafinur on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: shocking diary and comments (none / 0)

Because Bush is debating doing this very thing right now.


by bookgrl on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:20:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: shocking diary and comments (none / 0)

You know even bush/cheney haven't recommended sending troops into pakistan , its almost even further than bush/cheney , if you don't see any inconsistency in saying last week you will be willing to meet Ahmadinajed someone who is involved in the mess in iraq and our troops over there without preconditions and a 360 turn saying you would go in there no with airstrikes but troops to attack those terrorist then thats on you and I will leave you to deal with it.

That is common sense right there , somehow I suspect if it was Hillary saying this you will have been falling over yourself calling her a neo con . I wonder if this is where the dem primary electorate is .


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: shocking diary and comments (none / 0)

So, we are basically saying that Bush has been too chicken to do just that?   Hey, we know Obama is holed up in the Pakistani mountains somewhere, we have known that for a long time.  It makes no sense to go there, all guns blazing, on "intelligence," that could very well be wrong, basically invading a sovereign nation against their will, air striking into the mountains, an operation blessed with limited chance for success unless we go all out and add ground troops to the search party.   What is being scenarioed here is pure folly.  Even the Bush administration has not signalled that they would go as far as widening the war to include Pakistan to smoke Osame-Bin-Ladin out of the mountains.    


by georgep on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: shocking diary and comments (3.00 / 1)

I think you mean Osama, not "Obama." Let's try not to make that mistake again.


by DPW on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:00:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: shocking diary and comments (none / 0)

Ooops, George, what the heck was that?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Worst. Diary. Ever. (3.00 / 2)

And frankly those folks above spinning along with the diarist ought to be ashamed as well.

Obama did not call for invasion or unilateral war.  He promised to act on any actionable intelligence that we have.

That's the proper POV.  Unless you think that Kerry and Edwards were also calling for unilateral war when they criticized Bush for missing in Tora Boar and vowed not to make the same mistake.

Obama is saying the exact same thing.  But you folks know that.  You are distorting on purpose.

Shame on all of you.


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:39:19 AM EST

Re: Worst. Diary. Ever. (3.00 / 3)

Also, if you read the entire speech, Obama stresses many other dimensions to the strategy intended to diminish any unilateral military action (conditional aid, international alliances, and other political tactics). The diary and AP article can't be bothered with that part of the story, however.


by DPW on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worst. Diary. Ever. (none / 0)

Actionable intelligence is fine. Invasion is not fine. I think his people should contact AP and get the article corrected then. They sure as hell as using words like in invasion in the article when describing his position. If he does not advocate invasion, AP is misrepresenting Obama's position to millions of its readers and it is not fair to him.


by rakk12 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:47:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the first time AP has done this (none / 0)

And as always, we can count on the usual suspects to run with whatever characterization the AP places on his words.

For some, critical thinking is something that only happens when our own candidate is slimed.


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Obama: Calls for Unilateral War Agains (none / 0)

From the article:

"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."

We are NOT going to invade Pakistan. I don't give a shit what your candidate says. It ain't going to happen. You warmongers need to take a frickin chill pill because some of us here actually believe in peace. There's been more than enough killing and dying already.

I've said for a while that Obama and Lieberman are like two peas in a pod. This only proves it.

Screw JoeBama


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:43:25 AM EST

Re: Update: Obama: Calls for Unilateral War Agains (3.00 / 0)

You seriously think that if we know Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan and Musharraf won't do anything we shouldn't go in and take him out?

I cannot believe people play politics with this issue. This is above parties my friends.


by lafinur on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update: Obama: Calls for Unilateral War Agains (none / 0)

I have no problem at all taking out Bin laden. I am ALL for it. I am not however in favor of invading Pakistan which is what Obama has threatened. A destabilized Pakistan is not only a threat because nukes might fall into the hands of terrorists, it is a threat to the security of the region.

India=Nukes and China=Nukes

This whole proposal is unwise. I criticize Obama all the time. But I think this time what he said himself is much worse than anything I might offer.

Just say NO to Obama's War!


by DoIT on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:04:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought we learned (none / 0)

never start pre-emptive wars with countries with large numbers of islamic fundamentalists -- particularly when it's not the country causing you problems.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at