Obama & The Pakistan Problem
Tweet
It’s about time we started talking about this.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "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."
Obama’s mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan’s tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."
I simply love conservatives who supported and still support the invasion and occupation of Iraq recoiling at the idea that we should kill the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 no matter where the hell they are. Simply amazing.
Barack Obama wants to kill terrorists, that crazy bastard.
UPDATE: Jerome Armstrong of MyDD manages to get this completely wrong too.
Basically, a continuation of the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks in the mid-east, with Obama adding Pakistan to the list.
Perhaps this needs to be said slowly for kneejerkers on the left and right who don’t get this: America was attacked by Al Qaeda. George Bush responded by invading the wrong country. Americans want the terrorists who attacked us killed, no matter where they level, no matter what rock they hang out under. George Bush dropped the ball, Obama (and others, quite frankly) are talking about picking it up and killing the terrorists.
Seriously, if we have clear intel that Bin Laden or one of his top guys is in a specific cave in Pakistan – we don’t blow it up because it might offend the tender sensibilities of unelected leader Pervez Musharraf?
You gotta be kidding me.
36 Responses to “Obama & The Pakistan Problem”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“I simply love conservatives who supported and still support the invasion and occupation of Iraq ‘
Do you also love leftist bloggers who regularly decry the death toll of the war in Iraq and then support war with a much larger country wherein the death toal would likely be five times greater?
It’s operations to kill terrorists. Why are you so against killing terrorists?
american military power has failed to defeat terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In “a country that never attacked us”…
Just so we’re clear, you’re advocating sending in an occupying force into a nuclear-capable country that doesn’t want us on a mission supported by none of our international allies?
Cowboy Up!!!
No one said anything about an occupying force, Farris. You made that up. You and Dugger both are terrorist appeasers.
Remember this, boys? State of the Union, 2001?
Good times.
So Oliver, you’re in favor of invading Pakistan then?
Let me see if I have this right. If we go into Pakistan in pursuit of terrorists, we will suffer 5 times as many casualties as in Iraq. Assuming that’s accurate, how many people died in the WAR (not the occupation)? What are we looking at here, then, a death toll in the dozens, possibly hundreds?
And when we decide it’s time to pack up and leave, how will Pakistan keep the war going? Chase us home in their navy? Hop aboard their fleet of troop carriers and fly here with a refueling stop…somewhere? Fire their limited nukes, bringing certain destruction down on their heads from, what, just one U.S. sub (it’s not like it would take more)? Let’s not forget the ripe opening for India to strike, wiping a major opponent from the map.
Yes, yes, it’s all very clear.
So that “crazy bastard” Obama wants to hunt down and kill terrorists inside Pakistan even if “intelligence and military officials decide it is too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan”?
Musharraf is on shaky ground already. What are the “crazy bastard’s” plan when Musharraf is overthrown by a coup because he allowed or didn’t stop an incursion by the US into Pakistan’s soveriegn territory? Just askin’…
bill L.
Why are we (Obama and progressives) going to invade Pakistan? To seek out and kill terrorists. Right? Without a trial one would assume. And do you think they will just sit there and wait for us to come in? Won’t move around. Won’t be sheltered in an Islamic rural lawless land that has a 500 mile mountanous border with Afghanistan. And meanwhile while we are invading a large, nuclear capable soverriegn Muslim nation, their leaders are just going to sit back and do nothing. Right, Billy Boy?
Confess. Obama, with this ‘go to war with Pakistan’ schtick has stepped in it big time. He’s not ready for prime time. Expect instant back pedaling from his handlers and he now will have trouble even getting Hillary to accept him as VP.
Obama never said anything about going to war with Pakistan, invading it, or occupying it. You guys are simply making that up. What he did say is, if they are harboring the terrorist killers who killed Americans, we should kill them.
Is that so difficult?
“Just so we’re clear, you’re advocating sending in an occupying force into a nuclear-capable country that doesn’t want us on a mission supported by none of our international allies?”
In related news, Irony died today.
Obama never said anything about going to war with Pakistan, invading it, or occupying it.
Of course he is. The article says he made these statements in response to the news that BushCo DIDN’T act on intelligence back in 2005. This statement is saying that were he in charge back in the day, we WOULD have gone into Pakistan, and suffered all the unforseen consequences heretofore mentioned by other commenters.
Of course, maybe Obama just sees Osama as a “world leader” and just wants to have a summit with him. You never know.
What he did say is, if they are harboring the terrorist killers who killed Americans, we should kill them.
Is that so difficult?
And does he propose to do this? Last I checked, having our troops stand on the border and attempting to telepathically kill terrorists isn’t possible.
The guys who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq don’t think we should attack an Al Qaeda site because it’s in Pakistan. Stunning.
A bunch of terrorist appeasers, all of them. Why do they hate America?
On the subject of irony, none of these TA’s (terrorist appeasers) had any of these questions in 2002 when Dear Leader wanted to invade Iraq. Seems that I remember that they called us terrorist appeasers for asking questions like “why are we invading a country that is no threat to us” and “why is the president lying about WMD’s”.
Difference of course is that Iraq was currently in the midst of violating a cease-fire agreement, not to mention flouting numerous edicts from the UN. But I guess “global tests” were yesterday’s news.
Hi Oliver,
Longtime lurker, firstime poster. I read you daily but have never posted because to tell you the truth, I’m rather a conservative person and my views probably wouldn’t mesh too well here, but I enjoy reading you since you make me think about the other side and I can usually see your point of view, whether I agree or not.
But today – shocka! I totally agree with you! GWB did it all wrong and I’ve thought so for a long time. We should have gone into Afghanistan and Pakistan first and stayed the course until bin Laden and his ilk were taken in or taken down. Only then, should “other options” have been put on the table to deal with other terrorist-sponsoring countries. By taking down the actual perpetrators of 9/11 and dealing with it quickly and decisively we would have kept much more credibility in the world than we have now and we would not be seen as the bumbling cowboys (it hurts to say that, b/c I’m from TX)who not only invade the wrong country but can’t seem to do the job right.
I’m continually amazed that the Bush Administration has blundered so badly with respect to bin Laden. It feels like they just gave up the search. You know it’s bad when someone like me says that. Not only am I a conservative, but I voted for Bush more than twice – I also voted for him for Governor.
The betrayal hurts…
sorry for such a long comment!
blah, blah, blah, Farris. All of which could have been handled by the UN while we went after al Qaeda like we should have.
Terrorist appeaser.
The betrayal hurts…
I think she may be coming around!
Seriously, if we have clear intel that Bin Laden or one of his top guys is in a specific cave in Pakistan…
And if monkeys had wings, they could fly. You’ve been watching too many movies if you think an enemy combatant can be targeted that precisely.
“Difference of course is that Iraq was currently in the midst of violating a cease-fire agreement, not to mention flouting numerous edicts from the UN. But I guess “global tests” were yesterday’s news.”
-Of which the ‘edicts’ were being rebutted by renewed inspections sponsored by the UN. Blix or El Baradei ring a bell or are they yesterday’s news to you?
I’ll ask again:
How does Obama propose to do what he wants to do?
It’s a simple question Oliver.
You’ve been watching too many movies if you think an enemy combatant can be targeted that precisely.
Yuh-huh, I saw it in a Fred Thompson movie once!
How does Obama propose to do what he wants to do?
It’s a simple question Oliver.
How about you ask Obama? Unless you think Oliver has his mind-reading skilz back from the shop.
Obviously Obama is really naive cuz invadin’ Pakistan ain’t gud!
A hole buncha bad things’ll happin if we invade Pakistan!
In case anyone was wondering what it sounds like to kick trolls in the apple bag, I guess this thread has put that to rest.
Let me make sure I am clear, again, on all this:
It’s okay to illegally invade a country too small and weak to defend itself on false pretenses.
If a country marginally allied with you but swimming in oil is found to be arming and funding the principal factions arrayed against the U.S., you should immediately agree to sell them 20 billion in new arms.
When faced with nations such as Iran that really burn your toast, a grand strategy to weaken them is to arm terrorist groups that are just as likely to attack you.
When faced with an “ally” that is harboring the very enemies you have sworn to defeat and has been caught actively trading nuclear secrets to other “rogue” nations, give them an extra billion a year and stick to a hands off approach.
Always respect the nuke. Remember, a nation with nukes is a potent opponent that will only use them if pressed to deter an invasion…unless it’s Iran, in which case those loons will launch an attack on Israel the second they have one they can strap to a flat bed truck, thus risking total annihilation from Israel’s 200 nuke strong arsenal.
Precision bombing is impossible unless your name happens to be Zarqawi.
All options are on the table…except with Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
{insert 80 quotes from G.W. about going after the evil doers no matter where they hide}{insert “offer void where prohibited, i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.”}
Violating U.N. resolutions warrants the use of military strength…oh, I wasn’t talking to you, Israel, you go get ‘em! Right, like I was saying, the U.N. sucks and is a corrupt tool.
We should heed the advice of the military about Pakistan but dismiss and replace any general who doesn’t toe the line in Iraq.
Again, I’m just trying to be clear.
Duros, if Oliver is going to sit there playing cheerleader, he can at least offer some idea of what to do.
Again, he prattles on about “killing terrorists” but doesn’t offer any explanation of how that should be done.
“He’s not ready for prime time.”
Hey, I think it’s a little ridiculous to start talking about invading pakistan, but jeezus, dugger. Are you going to sit there and tell me that Obama is not ready to be president but the idiots that dreamed up our foolproof plan for bringing democracy to Iraq are?
You’re like a performance artist aren’t you? This Dugger persona is some kind of extended parody right?
And Jay, when you write shit like this — “if Oliver is going to sit there playing cheerleader, he can at least offer some idea of what to do.” — how the fuck does your head not explode?
KILL TERRORISTS.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? We find out where terrorists are AND KILL THEM.
I know it’s been 6 years of Bush administration dithering on this, but this is 101 level stuff.
“Again, he prattles on about ‘killing terrorists’ but doesn’t offer any explanation of how that should be done.”
I’d go with special ops over cruise missiles, but there are probably other options.
On a side note, that bundle of lies ABC pretended was based on the truth attacks the Clinton administration for failing to do exactly what Oliver Willis is proposing we do. In reality, there wasn’t actionable intelligence, which I think should be a pre-requisite, and I think special Ops has a better chance of confirming this intelligence.
“You’re like a performance artist aren’t you? This Dugger persona is some kind of extended parody right?
And Jay, when you write shit like this … how the fuck does your head not explode?”
The group of right-wingers on this site are so incompetent that I wouldn’t be surprised if they were pulling some massive sociological experiment.
Obama is not skilled to be our president. I’m so tired of the excessive media hype he receives. Many of his supporters are ignorant idol worshippers. I.E. Obama can do not wrong. His opinion of attacking Pakistan is outrageously stupid. Obama ideas are extremely inconsistent. One moment he wants to have lunch with dictators, the next he wants to bomb an ally. With these kind of crazy views, if Democrats foolishly vote for him in the primaries…I will choose not to vote in the general election or worse than this I may even vote Republican.
“if Oliver is going to sit there playing cheerleader, he can at least offer some idea of what to do.”
I suppose we could send them toothpaste and dog food from China…. or lead-painted toys. You know, for the kiddies.
What would you guys be saying if bin Ladin was in, say, Darfur or some other buttfuck country? Still respect their sovereignty?
I kinda doubt it.
bilk supernumerary sonnetary crome holosymmetrical multiflue troutbird sari
15
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
7
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/14.html
10
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html
13
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html
6
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/10.html
4
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
18
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/2.html
16
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/17.html
7
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/5.html
12
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html