As long time readers may know, I want Democratic pols to quit auditioning to be class president by demonstrating how gosh darn smart they are and start responding and talking like regular people (in other words, more Bill Clinton, less John Kerry). The clearest example of this was in the AFL-CIO debate Tuesday night where Obama reiterated his policy that if we have intel that Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Musharraf can’t or won’t act, we will. Sen. Clinton’s response was kind of silly, saying that we shouldn’t discuss that sort of policy in the course of a presidential campaign. With all due respect Sen. Clinton, that’s bull. This is not an audition to have the wonks at the Council on Foreign Relations or Brookings give you golf claps. You’re running for president, and average Americans are the only constituency that matters.
And we want Bin Laden dead and Al Qaeda destroyed. Period, no matter what.
What’s even funnier is that Republicans are all up in arms that Obama is war mongering and that such rhetoric upsets our allies - like they’re suddenly interested in what Germany thinks.
Sheeeeeeeeeesh. I swear, whatever pill there is that totally eliminates any semblance of shame or irony, Republicans have overdosed on it.
Oliver yes–exactly.
I felt Senator Clinton’s answer was something like “there there, public, don’t worry your pretty heads about this hard foreign policy stuff. Best to leave it all undiscussed so the brilliant geniuses who gave us the Iraq war can repeat it all over again.”
“State the reasons and examine them” convinces me more than “don’t state the reasons, just trust me.”
I’m liking Obama more and more.
“…quit auditioning to be class president by demonstrating how gosh darn smart they are and start responding and talking like regular people (in other words, more Bill Clinton, less John Kerry).”
This attitude drove me crazy in 2000, in 2004, and it still drives me crazy. It’s the epitome of the Karl Rove era of politics: your candidate is a dumbass, running against a pretty smart guy. What do you do? Call him an “intellectual”. Suddenly, being a dumbass is a good thing. Wtf? If we have two candidates for some important job, like, say, president, don’t we want the smart one instead of the dumb one?
Obama is clearly not ready for prime time and Sen Clinton is. He would invade Pakistan (don’t hand me any BS about a small hit team - he will either have to invade in force or kill the small group of GIs - the area is way too big and the people too unfriendly - took over 8 months to find Saddam). Why go to war with an ally? This is idiocy of the first magnitude. Whats going to happen. The adults in the party won’t permit Obama’s Pakistan war; Pakistan will get pissed and stop supporting us in Afghan. Thank you Sen Obama (get some sane advisors!!!!)
There he goes again with his TA (Terrorist Appeaser) rhetoric. Why does he hate America?
And we want Bin Laden dead and Al Qaeda destroyed. Period, no matter what.
Unless they make a phone call.
“Obama is clearly not ready for prime time and Sen Clinton is. He would invade Pakistan (don’t hand me any BS about a small hit team - he will either have to invade in force or kill the small group of GIs - the area is way too big and the people too unfriendly - took over 8 months to find Saddam). Why go to war with an ally? This is idiocy of the first magnitude. Whats going to happen. The adults in the party won’t permit Obama’s Pakistan war; Pakistan will get pissed and stop supporting us in Afghan. Thank you Sen Obama (get some sane advisors!!!!)”
Obama isn’t saying invade Pakistan, just like Bush isn’t planning on invading Iran. The word strike is way different than invade.
It’s actually the right strategy for Obama. He can look tough on the terrorists who actually attacked us and take on Hillary’s Iraq war support at the same time. Both popular positions with the majority of Americans.
Sending some drones or cruise missiles into the remote hills of Pakistan is not going to topple Musharaff, it could actually strengthen him if he plays the good cop bad cop game right. This has been our foreign (and domestic) policy since Bush showed up on the scene.
The presidency should not be decided based on hyper-specific hypothetical scenarios.
The fact that this Obama-Clinton Pakistan ‘issue’ has become a story shows the press and public’s confusion of real issues that impact Americans and a toss-away question in a debate.
WeakY Chum,
Your interpretation of Obama’s war rhetoric is that he only means shooting some cruise missiles into the frontier area dirt and that will make him “look” good. Real foreign policy substance! I don’t think that is what Obama or OW are talking about when they say kill Ts.
Well, here’s a news report on what the current president had to say just a couple of days ago:
This differs from what Mr. Obama says how?
And OW, what the heck are you talking about?
YOU said pretty much the same thing as Ms. Clinton just last week (but for a different reason).
Ms. Clinton said it’s not smart to go shooting your mouth off about invading an ally when the country’s leader is already on shaky ground. You said it’s not smart to go shooting your mouth off about what you will or won’t do to to catch al Qaeda hiding in Pakistan.
You’re both complaining that Mr. Obama talks too openly about what he might do, given a hypothetical situation posed to him in the form of a question.
I clench my teeth when I say this, but I’m afraid I think Hillary’s right on this one.
Your perspective that Obama is saying what Americans want to hear is right — and that’s why he’s saying it. It’s a red-meat political play.
Here’s the problem: while obviously I don’t dispute the necessity of taking out bin Laden, I think it must, MUST be done diplomatically. We don’t have the resources to invade Pakistan, and we don’t want another war even if we did. What we need to do is bring Musharraf to the table, convince him to play ball, and get his help in taking out bin Laden.
And adding “and if you don’t, we’re going in with or without your consent” makes diplomacy a hell of a lot harder.
Role reversal though it may be, I think on this one Obama is going for a strategy that will get him votes but hurt us in the long run, whereas Hillary is exercising restraint because she thinks this rhetoric could be damaging.
Pay attention Quaker. Obama has said he will go in regardless. Bush said he would go in with Pakistani cooperation and didn’t specify beyond.
“Pay attention Quaker. Obama has said he will go in regardless. Bush said he would go in with Pakistani cooperation and didn’t specify beyond.”
Dugger would let a dictator decide whether the military can protect our country. Why does he hate America?
“Bush said he would go in with Pakistani cooperation and didn’t specify beyond.”
Bzzzzt … Wrong:
Your ignorance and hackery remain on full display.
Bush said he would go in with Pakistani cooperation and didn’t specify beyond.
So if we get good intelligence and if General Musharraf gives the OK,then Mr. Bush will continue to smoke them out and get them dead or alive, is that it?
Quaker - Bush won’t say one way or another whether he will seek pakistani cooperation on any US actions within its borders.
Dugger believes that’s the sign of an unserious, not ready for prime time candidate. Apparently, however, such reckless indifference to the internal politics of our allies is perfectly acceptable in actual presidents …
of course, since Dugger either 1) doesn’t know Bush’s policy or 2) is just making shit up, he’s free to say whatever idiotic thing pops into his head …
And OW, just three posts down from this one, you praise Ms. Clinton’s organization for having message discipline. Yet you fault her for saying that candidates ought to have message discipline!
What’s up with that?
Sen. Clinton has message discipline, but in this case her message is wrong. I think Obama is right to make clear that nothing will stop him from killing Bin Laden, but I don’t think it makes sense for him to make a blanket statement about the use of nukes being off the table.
I think Obama is right to make clear that nothing will stop him from killing Bin Laden
…unless “actionable intelligence” that serves that end comes from a waterboarding session.
Yes, Farris, goddammit. Because we’re supposed to be the Good Guys. Do you get that at all?
You know that thing Nietzche once said about not battling with monsters, lest ye become one? Some of us believe that you do have to battle monsters but remain wary of that warning.
As is typical of torture-defenders, you’re so fucking scared of terrorists that you’ll agree to any goddamn thing if you were told it would keep you safe from harm. In other words, you’ve been well and thoroughly terrorized, and are of no use to America until you stop being such a whiny crybaby and remember that the principles of Americans do not include torture.
frame,
Your ‘evidence’ supports my point - not yours. Did you read it?
Quaker
“So if we get good intelligence and if General Musharraf gives the OK,then Mr. Bush will continue to smoke them out and get them dead or alive, is that it?”
You can interpret Bush’s remarks any way you see fit. I believe he is saying he would go after Ts (into Pakistan) with Pakistan’s approval. Other than that he is not stating preconditions either way as regards that specific topic.
Obama has said he will invade Pakistan to kill terrorists or get OBL - with no conditional approval - to the cheers of much of the progressive community.
I believe he is saying he would go after Ts (into Pakistan) with Pakistan’s approval.
Me too.
I seem to remember a presidential candidate who took a lot of guff from conservatives for saying such a thing as that.
“I believe he is saying he would go after Ts (into Pakistan) with Pakistan’s approval.”
Nice Dugger. So now it’s what you “believe” Bush is saying rather than what he actually said. Bush refused to say either way whether Pakistan’s approval would be a condition of going in. In other words, he left open the option of going into Pakistan without its approval. Why? because he wants to seem tough on terror.
You’re a hack.
“Me too.”
Quaker, Come on man … Here’s how the Chicago Tribune reported Bush’s remarks:
Please tell me you think Bush, or any president, would EVER come out and directly announce that his authority was conditional on the approval of any other nation … Please tell me that Right wing hacks like Dugger wouldn’t be criticizing Obama for suggesting his foreign policy would be “beholden” to internal Pakistani politics while praising Bush for his tough serious stance …
Unless you guys want to link to the quote where Bush explicitly makes Pakistani approval a condition of hunting terrorists you’re both misrepresenting what Bush’s stance is …
Please tell me you think Bush, or any president, would EVER come out and directly announce that his authority was conditional on the approval of any other nation
That seems to be what he said. Not my fault. All I know is what spills out of the intertubes.
“Obama has said he will go in regardless. Bush said he would go in with Pakistani cooperation and didn’t specify beyond.”
This is such a bunch of bullshit. Obama’s position and Bush’s position are exactly the fucking same.
In other words: Bush saying he would go in with Pakistani approval is like, DUH.
Bush refusing to publicly assert that Pakistani approval is a condition for going in is tantamount to saying it isn’t.
frame, They’re not the same. Obama has said he will go in with or without Pakistani approval. Bush has said (with good intel) he would go in with Pakistani approval. And has not been specific beyond that. Those aren’t the same. Unlike, Obama Bush has not AFFIRMED he would go in without Pakistani approval.
And why is that Dugger?
Obama has said he will invade Pakistan
Not true. He never said it. You made it up.
George Bush wants a permission slip from Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, Barack Obama doesn’t.
SaveFarris: “…unless “actionable intelligence” that serves that end comes from a waterboarding session.”
Or perhaps from a gay translator?
OW
If he is not going to invade Pakistan -cross into their territory with military force- exactly how will Obama kill terrorists in Pakistan OW? Magic? Will Kreskin be his running mate?
frame,
Bush is president. Unlike Obama, he understands geopolitics. For one thing, good relations with Pakistan are critical to the Afghan mission. Otherwise, its also plain common sense. You notice Hillary has not been dumb enough to follow Obama’s line.
Bush is president. Unlike Obama, he understands geopolitics
LOL. LMAO.
Dead ender to the end, eh?
You know what else would have been critical to the Afghan mission? Not committing the lion’s share of our military to invading a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of 3,000+ Americans.
Bush can barely spell geopolitics.
“For one thing, good relations with Pakistan are critical to the Afghan mission. Otherwise, its also plain common sense.”
Which translates into what Dugger? Making Pakistan’s approval a condition of action or simply not saying out loud that it isn’t and never will be?
OW has consistently avoided saying a word about how he and Obama are going to kill terrorists in Pakistan without going in with military force - INVADING. I bet he never answers.
I already told you, Dugger. We sent them toothpaste from China.
Also, you have consistently avoided saying how you would kill terrorists, so really , don’t throw stones.
Unless that’s how you intend to do it.
And while you’re at dugger let’s just keep ignoring that fact that either obama and bush’s positions are exactly the same or else Bush has granted Perez Musharaff final say over the use of American force.
You seem more comfortable accepting the latter than the former. I wonder why that is?
duros,
We’re trying to kill terrorists as hard as we can. The problem is and always has been locating them and having them remain in one place long enough to do something. How many times did we hear of the potential a raid had to get Saddam and not bear fruit. So I would not risk relations with Pakistan and hence the chances of success in Afghan for some shot in the dark, half-assed chance to kill suspected Ts in the Pakistani hinterlands - that may or may not (likely not) be there by the time we arrive. Its truly asinine. I even suspect OW knows Obama’s position is dog crap.
frame, You are flat wrong. Not the same. One is careful and modulated and the other is rash and stupid.
“One is careful and modulated and the other is rash and stupid.”
oh please. the policy is the same and you know it.
oh wait, you seem to have actually shifted your position here. You’re suggesting that Bush’s approach to the policy is ‘careful and modulated’ while Obama’s is ‘rash and stupid.’
bush is trying desperately to re-make himself as knowing something, anything about “geo-politics” (looks like he’s got one sucker in the bag) while obama wants to appear tough on terror.
Their policy position is exactly the same because you know that no US president would ever, EVER give his authority over our military.
… to another country, especially a terrorist state dictatorship like pakistan. Are you kidding me?
“So I would not risk relations with Pakistan and hence the chances of success in Afghan for some shot in the dark, half-assed chance to kill suspected Ts in the Pakistani hinterlands - that may or may not (likely not) be there by the time we arrive.”
What bullshit. All we’ve been hearing about for years now is that we’ll stop at nothing to prevent another 9-11.
What you’re suggesting is that even with actionable intelligence Bush should NOT intercede in pakistan without Musharaff’s approval.
If John Kerry had staked out that position in 2004 conservatives would have had a field day, instead of, you know, making shit up about his vietnam record.
Now Obama takes the same position as the current US president and he’s totally insane. Ok … whatever …
One is careful and modulated and the other is rash and stupid.
The trick now is determining which is which.
Remember this? State of the Union, 2001?
Hmmm, nowhere does it say “unless it’s Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.”
Must have been a typo.
Nor does it say anything about asking permission to use military force in any situation.
And “actionable intelligence?”
Please.
So, duros, you would invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
Or do you really feel Obama is full of Dodo doodoo and are trying to give him cover by claiming Bush has the same position (which he does not - he has been president since 2000 and has invaded neither).
Its one thing not to promise anything - the wise thing Ms Clinton is doing - another to state openly that you would invade a sovereign ally - as Obama is doing.
I don’t see the benefit of “invading” anything or anyone. I’m just trying to reconcile what the president said 5 years ago with the actions he has taken since then.
And I do think that Obama’s position and Bush’s are, while maybe not the same, clearly similar in scope. Bush just isn’t showing his cards (big surprise).
the difference is Obama is interested in getting results from our efforts to stop Al Qaeda, while Bush “isn’t that concerned” about it.
And that seems to be okay with you.
How would you do it? Again, you poo poo everyone else, but you has no plan.
“So, duros, you would invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?”
Oh mercy, dugger. Now you’re down to arguing that Bush is a foreign policy genius because he invaded Afghanistan (failing to catch Bin laden in the process while allowing the taliban to regroup and return) and Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and failing just about everything in the process).
I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq nor should we invade pakistan or iraq. Of course, you keep using the term invasion despite the fact that Obama said no such thing.
be that as it may, if Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are not doing what they need to do to control terrorists and terrorist support networks within their countries, we will have to do something on our own if we can’t convince them diplomatically.
The alternative that you are proposing is that we hand control of our foreign policy and military options over to dictators and despots just because they claim to be our allies, but actually do nothing for us because they are afraid of their own populations.
hell, you want to spread democracy in the middle east? How about pushing hard for some democratic reforms in pakistan and saudi arabia, instead of giving them billions of dollars in aid and weapons so they can continue to oppress their own people?
You are such a fucking hack it boggles the mind.
“Its one thing not to promise anything - the wise thing Ms Clinton is doing - another to state openly that you would invade a sovereign ally - as Obama is doing.”
I’ll note again that you are now quibbling over semantics instead of actual policy differences. We all know that Bush would never surrender our military and national security interests to Pakistan’s approval. His position is exactly the same as Obama’s.
Let me throw out a hypothetical for you dugs:
We have solid actionable intelligence indicating exactly where and when we might find some significant al qaeda target in Pakistan, possibly Bin Laden, himself. The intelligence is solid, a missile strike would do the trick. We’re ready to roll but Pakistan says no.
In your mind we should back off and let the intel go? yes or no?
for bonus points, tell me how Bush/Rove would spin it when the story is leaked …
frame,
I’ll respond to your scenario even though its highly unlikely (the target would move, the target is not likely in range - and that wouldn’t be a coincidence, etc etc). So a target is frozen in position long enough for us to get a missile in launching range. And Pakistan has said no. Well, my action would depend on who the target is: OBL? OBL’s # 2? Somebody very close? If so and I knew the probability of success was almost a certainty, I would probably do the strike and not say a thing about it for a while. Keep in mind, per your scenario, Pakistan would know it came from us. I would say nothing for a while. Pakistan would be pissed, but if we said nothing, they might just swallow the violation and let it pass. Later, I would announce to the world that a few months back in a secret strike in a classified area, we killed OBL. Imperfect (a strike like that is never a ‘certainty’ and I wouldn’t put it past AQ to surround OBl with innocent children - I assume your sceanrio includes minmal colalteral damge posibilities) but them its a very unrealistic scenario. Its my contention that, rather than being Obama’s bogeyman, Pakistan would love, themselves, to be able to take out OBL and his henchpersons.
Its my contention that … Pakistan would love, themselves, to be able to take out OBL and his henchpersons.
Historically, it would not appear so.
Musharraf has a treaty in place with the warlords/tribal leaders of the area that they can do whatever they want as long as they don’t attack Pakistani forces or US forces. They have not attacked Pakistani forces in over 4 years. They continue to attack US forces across the border and remain unchallenged about it.
Oh, in addition to aiding and abetting, harboring and protecting al Qaeda.
But basically, Duggsy, aren’t you advocating Obama’s position on the matter, or at least what we perceive Obama’s position to be?
he is advocating Obama’s position. which is also Bush’s position.
Dugger is an idiot.
Not to put too fine a point on it but in the speech that sparked this whole dumb controversy, Obama said:
“if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President
Musharraf won’t act, we will”
Dugger just wrote:
“If so and I knew the probability of success was almost a certainty, I would probably do the strike … Pakistan would be pissed, but if we said nothing, they might just swallow the violation and let it pass.”
Pop some popcorn and watch dugger parse the differences in what promises to be a truly dazzling display of idiot hackery …
duros,
No. I accepted frame’s very unrealistic scenario wherein OBL or his #2 remain magically frozen in place and in missile range, and I didn’t advocate an invasion. Furthermore, I wouldn’t not be advertising ahead of time my intention to invade. All different from Obama.
And the problem with the frontier area is that Paksitan is unable to police it - it is too big, rural and semi hostile. Musha just completed a raid in there last week (heli.s) and they have raided there before. But thats the problem. They have to raid.
frame
You know of course I saw this coming along time agoa and still responded to your fairy tale scenario. And ita still not the same. Obama has not limited himself to cruise missiles or remote strikes at all. Now, he could belatedly do that but that sure as hell doesn’t sound like the war drums OW is pounding and it will look really bad compared to Hillary who never has walked out on that stupid invade-Pakistan plank Obama put himself on.
duros,
No. I accepted frame’s very unrealistic scenario wherein OBL or his #2 remain magically frozen in place and in missile range, and I didn’t advocate an invasion. Furthermore, I wouldn’t not be advertising ahead of time my intention to invade. All different from Obama.
And the problem with the frontier area is that Paksitan is unable to police it - it is too big, rural and semi hostile. Musha just completed a raid in there last week (heli.s) and they have raided there before. But thats the problem. They have to raid.
frame
You know of course I saw this coming along time agoa and still responded to your fairy tale scenario. And ita still not the same. Obama has not limited himself to cruise missiles or remote strikes at all. Now, he could belatedly do that but that sure as hell doesn’t sound like the war drums OW is pounding and it will look really bad compared to Hillary who never has walked out on that stupid invade-Pakistan plank Obama put himself on.
Right on cue.
Obama said that if Pakistan refused to act on actionable intelligence against “high level” terrorist targets in its country, the US would be forced to act on its own.
You just advocated the exact same policy.
You’re an idiot.
And again, he never said invasion. You did.
Exactly. Obama never said invasion. Right wing hacks did.
You just advocated taking action in Pakistan against the wishes of the Pakistan government. That’s exactly Obama’s position as well.
Dance, monkey, dance!!!
yvox kpwnzh eohatfjgu vaewpdjq dqiyvwao bwysa bfjacvymg