Opening The Door For Gore
I am stunned by the latest about Barack Obama, from Nedra Pickler of the AP:
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly 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."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Hmm, the "Let me make this clear" bit makes it hard to believe this is an out-of-context misquote.
Well. As has been mooted for years, Musharraf has the strength of weakness - if we push him too hard he might, he might be replaced and nuclear Pakistan might be run by someone much worse.
I really don't know what Obama is thinking here. The offered explanation - "an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive" - is troubling, yet strangely plausible; for more on the "See How They Run" Dems voguing for profiles in courage, turn to the Anon Lib pondering the Dems haste to amend FISA to Bush's liking.
I'll guess this keeps the Gore flame flickering - I understand he is happy doing his current thing, but someone will sit down and engage in a frank and rank appeal to his ego, insisting that this is not about Al but about saving the planet - Obama is dangerously inexperienced, Hillary is unelectable, but Al can stave off Evil Rudy (or Evil Fred) and save the planet.
As to the policy itself - I have no doubt that when Rumsfeld's decision to cancel the "invasion of Pakistan" was reported in the Times a few weeks back the reflexive Bush-bashers bashed this (some flavor at Memeorandum). However... even if one thinks that we should have risked the collapse of the Musharraf government over this raid, I can't imagine that people further believe we should have announced out intentions in advance, as Obama is doing here - couldn't we at least preserve some implausible deniability, or wait until we have a few high-value captives to parade before we admit to violating the Pakistani border?
My other thought is that Obama is carrying a particular Dem notion to a logical extreme. Bush has said for years that the War on Terror is not simply about Osama bin Laden. In opposition, some Dems (I am thinking of Kerry's 2004 run) decided to make Bush's failure to catch Osama at Tora Bora a centerpiece of their campaign. Which has now brought us here.
I will be very curious to see how Hillary and Richardson react to this.
MORE: From AllahPundit at Hot Air we learn that last September Bush said he would order US troops into Pakistan to kill or capture Bin Laden.
That's an interesting double-switch - do reflexive Bush bashers now feel obliged to bash Obama?
Here is the speech; Jim Geraghty of NRO has a fun breakdown (Of the speech! I assume Jim's nerves are fine.)

So he's a cowboy unilateralist...
...if he means it...
...or cynical...
...if he doesn't.
This may come as a surprise to some, given my and Obama's history together, but I'm just not picking up a yipee cay yay vibe from him.
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 10:56 AM
great- Did Pakistan get nuclear arms during Clinton's watch, unknown to that smart CIA super covert spy?
Will we just terror bomb as we do not have enough mountain troops to invade those mountains. Conventional bombs not effective in mountains, Obama may want to use nukes.
Posted by: PaulV | August 01, 2007 at 10:57 AM
He sure isn't thinking about the terrain. That's literally the last place in the world to send troops. All our logistical advantages go away.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | August 01, 2007 at 11:04 AM
"I'll guess this keeps the Gore flame flickering "
More Gore carbon emissions.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 01, 2007 at 11:06 AM
I'm glad Anon Lib is agitated. Maybe the head tossing will rearrange things in the cranium and get the brain working properly again.
Posted by: clarice | August 01, 2007 at 11:09 AM
"..his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive."
And threatening to invade nuclear Pakistan helps dispel the idea that he is naive?? How does he think this will help?
Posted by: Les Nessman | August 01, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Well, think about it.
In the last debate he said he would meet with Castro, Chavez, Amadinejad and Kim Jong Il in his first year as president without any qualifications.
He is agitating for Musharraf to be overthrown so a dictatorship can replace the democratically elected president.
Obama Likes Dictators.
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 11:15 AM
CHESS NOT CHECKERS: Oh, he's saber rattling now, but his real goal here is to win the endorsement of fellow dictator loving Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 11:17 AM
"I really don't know what Obama is thinking here."
Posted by: Rick Ballard | August 01, 2007 at 11:21 AM
"He sure isn't thinking about the terrain".
He doesn't know about the terrain,he's a politician,he knows sweet Fanny Adams about anything.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 01, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Les Nessman:
And threatening to invade nuclear Pakistan
It's Gore-bait.
Cause a nuclear winter to stem the tide of global warming.
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 11:23 AM
H&R You are in top form this morning...
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
So after obama mama gets done gutting the NSA, CIA and FBI and wiretaps will be illegal to use, gitmo will be empty...uhhh.
where is all the actionable intelligence going to come from? Larry Johnson?
The Far-left must be freaking out right now..time to start painting those 'Hell No we won't go' signs...
Posted by: HoosierHoops | August 01, 2007 at 11:37 AM
I was trying to think of the various factions of the Democrat caucus, as much as it pains me. So isn't the nutroots no war contingent split pretty well between Edwards and OBama currently? How will these rabid ones take this news? Will they see it as a wink and a nod without any real fist in the glove?
I give it about 50/50 odds right now that a sunder erupts in the Democrats after their coronation of the nominee. You have already heard Code Pink and Mama Sheehan decry the Democrats as wont do what they were sent to do, so when their guys get banished to the outback dont they just get mad and stay home or vote for Ralph again?
Posted by: Gmax | August 01, 2007 at 11:42 AM
I admire his consistency:
* Withdraw from Iraq
* Ignore Afghanistan
* Appease Iran
* Invade Pakistan
Ow. Obama makes my head hurt.
Posted by: JayC | August 01, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I think Gore is likely to follow his ego, deciding that he is the only one who can win the Presidency. Didn't he recently cancel his speaking engagements for the next 6 months? And then there is his new book.
My bet is he jumps in, unless Hillary's mean machine has some dirt on him.
Posted by: SWarren | August 01, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Leaving off the obvious problems of a nuclear deterrent and unfavorable terrain, Senator Obama, fresh off complaining how our military is overstretched in Iraq (population 27 million), is now suggesting we invade Pakistan (population 164 million). Not so much worried about what he's thinking . . . I'm more worried he can't count.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | August 01, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Bleh. If Bush said the same thing people would be falling all over themselves for his "strength."
Posted by: EH | August 01, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Hmmm, bottle em up in Pakistan, enlist the help of Pakistan's neighbors, surveillance, surveillance, surveillance. Any of em pop their heads up, whack em. Works for me, then again, I ain't Obama. Maybe he'd like to lead the first battalion of Special Ops into the Mountains?
I think Obama Hussein is about to unravel. Too driven by polling. No center of gravity.
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 01, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Cecil:
Obama will have all those troops wasting time in Iraq on January 20....
There is an argument to be made that Iraq keeps us from a credible threat against Pakistan. (That peace traty Mush signed is about the worst thing he could have done. sigh.)
However, Obama's comment is just loopy. Empty threats from an empty head, one fears...
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | August 01, 2007 at 11:59 AM
TM:
rank appeal to his ego, insisting that this is not about Al but about saving the planet - Obama is dangerously inexperienced, Hillary is unelectable, but Al can stave off Evil Rudy (or Evil Fred) and save the planet.
Oh, I disagree. Vehemently, if shamefully. You left someone out of the mix.
Well, I have to come clean. It's only fair that I be honest here.
I will be voting for John Edwards.
There I said it. I didn't like saying it, I don't even like thinking about it, but that's the way it's gotta be.
mrs hit and run has single-handedly, in less than two weeks in Hawaii, placed us squarely in the Other America.
I really have no choice in the matter.
[VIMH: Ah, come on, it can't all that bad?]
No, you're right, with all the points racked up on the credit card, I bet we can get a pen set, a ceramic dog, an Elvis plate, a limited-edition, gold-plated commemorative Jeff Gordon coin and like 50 magazine subscriptions.
[VIMH: F-I-F-T-Y magazine subscriptions?]
Egads, you’re right...are there even 50 magazines to choose from before I have to get Newsweek or f'n Oprah???
[VIMH: Oh, that's just sick. Really.]
Oh, gosh sorry, I didn't even realize, yeah, the phrase “f'n Oprah” was an accident, and I had no intent to paint that image.
[VIMH: No, I mean subscribing to Newsweek]
Oh, right. Gotcha.
Anyway, Go Edwards!
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 12:01 PM
So. He would send troops into Pakistan to rout out terrorists.
Does that mean that he would also
send troops into Iraq to rout out terrorists?
send troops into Iran to rout out terrorists?
send troops into Syria to rout out terrorists?
etc.
What am I missing?
Posted by: Uncle Bigbad | August 01, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Rasmussen has new party identification numbers up which highlight problems for both sides.
They both seem to be losing the struggle for the muddle with the Dems losing slightly more. The Dems will do better once they get the nutters locked in the attic.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | August 01, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Uncle..Those troops will be sent to Darfur to prevent genocide. Though we shouldn't keep our troops in Iraq even if it will result in a far bigger genocide if we remove them.
Gosh, how hard is that to figure out?
Posted by: clarice | August 01, 2007 at 12:12 PM
No,no, no Clarice, you aren't thinking straight. This is law enforcement see? You aren't allowed to preempt a crime, you only punish for it after it happens. Therefore, since there isn't any genocide in Iraq, "right now," there is no need for us to be there. After the genocide, then it's O.K. to go back in from Okinawa and clean things up. Got it?
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 01, 2007 at 12:19 PM
It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005.
So now we had Obama jockeying to the right of Donald Rumsfeld, who called off the 2005 action after planners had designed an incredibly huge footprint for the operation.
Posted by: Neo | August 01, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Thanks Clarice,
I'm so naive, but I have to tell you - Obama, Hillary, & Silky scare me more than Cheney scares the nutroots.
Posted by: Uncle Bigbad | August 01, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Isn't one of Barack Hussein's reasons for being against the Iraq war the argument that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11? Yeah, yeah, I know, links and all that. But? Pakistan Did?
He needs a straight jacket to get himself out of these knots.
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 01, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Speaking of Gore ....
Every photo of him in recent years, and many video clips, make him look like a man battling demons. (Check out his eyes). I have long wondered (seriously, not snarkily) if he is mentally stable?
I am basing this mostly on the way he looks and the way he says things (rather than what he says).
Anybody else get the heeby jeebies looking at his pictures?
Posted by: centralcal | August 01, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Obama never said he would invade the country. He said he would have let go foward the targeted strike of Al-Qaeda that Bush aborted and let bin Laden go free. There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Furthermore, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response. This is obviously an implicit attack on the Clintons, as the Clintons refused to take out Osama by missile when they had him in their crosshairs because Sandy Berger suspected they lacked proper authorization. Playing up the invasion spin just misses the point.
Posted by: Jack T | August 01, 2007 at 12:32 PM
an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive
This is some bunk the reporter made up.
Posted by: Zoe | August 01, 2007 at 12:33 PM
More from that Obama speech from Geraghty
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 12:33 PM
As to whether wanting to be president is more or less crazy than running when you don't want to be president, well, that's a different argument...
Posted by: cathyf | August 01, 2007 at 12:39 PM
"* Withdraw from Iraq
* Ignore Afghanistan
* Appease Iran
* Invade Pakistan"
I don't think this shows anything more than taking the opposite position to whatever one Pres. Bush has taken.
Also, according to Hussein Obama's "thinking," we can't fight terrorists in Iraq because they weren't there before our invasion. Therefore, they get a pass.
Posted by: PaulL | August 01, 2007 at 12:39 PM
There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion.
Unfortunately for your young and naive waif of a candidate, no there is not. A cross border incursion is an act of war pure and simple. So exactly what has Pakistan done as a act of war against the USA that would brand them the aggressor here and not the USA?
I will save my unilateralist cowboy diplomacy taunt until after you cook up some Bullshite response.
Posted by: Gmax | August 01, 2007 at 12:42 PM
From the speech:
You can certainly interpret "battlefield" as less than invasion or occupation...but it seems he lumps Afghanistan, where we have invaded and Pakistan, where we have not, into one single battlefield...
Posted by: hit and run | August 01, 2007 at 12:44 PM
If they were to be walking down the street and come upon a woman being raped, would their only response be to excoriate the woman for masturbating in public?
Posted by: cathyf | August 01, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Let's see, when we leave Iraq, I wonder where all those Terrorrists in Pakistan will go?
Just askin.
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 01, 2007 at 12:51 PM
What's so unusual about a Dem promising to support millitary action someplace other than where it is actually occuring?
Posted by: Daniel | August 01, 2007 at 12:52 PM
There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Furthermore, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response..
Well Jack..I wasn't aware of the technology available to us to fire a missle from a ship or wherever and fly it into remote mountain ranges and find a cave and..Bam! Dead terrorists!! what about forward air operators, Ranger teams, Seal teams, the 10th mountain Division, logistical support teams? If juicing a missle for a targeted strike was so simple, Bush would have already pushed the button by now, don't you think? a 1000 miles of mountain ranges and we are going to find some terrorists in a cave there by our super secret super duper sighting thingy dingy rocket launcher..thingy.. or better yet..some arabs are camping out one night under the stars and a drone kills them..who's actionable intellegence provided that target..his pissed off brother-in-law? Obama should have a field day being the CIC..so many buttons to push..so little time..
( the previous knee-jerk reaction was brought to you by the hoopster.. a division of trash talk America, ) SWISH!!
Posted by: HoosierHoops | August 01, 2007 at 12:57 PM
"If they were to be walking down the street and come upon a woman being raped, would their only response be to excoriate the woman for masturbating in public?"
It would be helpful if you gave the race and economic status of the participants in the drama. How can thorough polling be done and a study group questioned without necessary and vital information being made available?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | August 01, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Let's see, when we leave Iraq, I wonder where all those Terrorrists in Pakistan will go?
Just askin.
I've said this a dozen times. If we leave Iraq there will be tapes shortly after which show Zarqhawi and Osama (if he's alive) in Baghdad.
You can bet on it.
Posted by: royf | August 01, 2007 at 01:10 PM
"Those troops will be sent to Darfur to prevent genocide."
Since the invasion of Iraq has attracted al Qaeda to fight there,why wouldn't Darfur provide the same attraction,probably afford a better chance of victory over a small "police" force.
It has been said that Iraq is Ameruca's fly trap,what if Darfur is al Qaeda's fly trap.
Posted by: PeterUK | August 01, 2007 at 01:13 PM
The sweet irony about Obama's remarks is that if Hillary counters them, she WILL sound like Bush Lite. Whatsa Dem to do.
Obama isn't going anywhere, Hill will win. The problem will be in the general with all those voters who really really want Obama. Will they settle for Bush Lite or will they sit the whole thing out?
(Many of them are young and would be first time voters--perhaps they'll leave their first time for 2012.)
----------------------------
Anybody hear what I heard a week or so ago? The number of foreign jihadi's going to Afghanistan has tripled in the last few weeks.
wonder why. Hmmmm. It couldn't be they know something the Dems don't--that we're smashing al Qaeda in Iraq and the jihadis aren't going to die for a lost cause?
Posted by: Syl | August 01, 2007 at 01:20 PM
I've seen "Jack T's" response posted word for word under different names on different blogs comment section.
In all cases, his comment is simply false both as pointed out above, and as that isn't what Obama said.
Posted by: Robin Roberts | August 01, 2007 at 01:21 PM
I agree with cathy's evaluation of Gore. Pity he flunked theology school because he seems happiest playing a sort of Elmer Gantry guy on stage (though he is a real snob ).
Daniel"What's so unusual about a Dem promising to support millitary action someplace other than where it is actually occuring?" Bingo. Were I writing the ads for the RNC I'd do something called "Over There" and run clips of them always calling for us to leave where we are and fight the "real enemy" OVER THERE.
Posted by: clarice | August 01, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Clarice,
Don't forget to add that they will hit OVER THERE with every Camel Butt/Empty Tent Seeker Missile in the arsenal. Until there's a single casualty, of course.
I've always wondered if the same company makes the deadly Republican Wedding Party Seeker. Is it just a change in guidance systems?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | August 01, 2007 at 01:30 PM
that we're smashing al Qaeda in Iraq and the jihadis aren't going to die for a lost cause?
Oh, I think they'll still die for a lost cause somewhere, it just won't be in Iraq. Pitty we didn't just let Slobodan Milosovech handle em.
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 01, 2007 at 01:30 PM
There's an argument, that Pakistan, through it's ISI liason; Saeed Omar Sheikk, the man who kidnapped but didin't kill Danny Pearl;
routing moneys from General Mahmood Shah, did have a larger role in 9/11 than we ordinarily credit. However, the Britsh track record in the NorthWest Frontier; at Buner, the Black Mountains, the Mahsud expeditions as well as Malakand, & the Fakir hunt of the 30s, should really make
us seriously reconsider Effendi Barak's suggestion there. Another likely target is egypt, which in return for the 3 billion+
we provided for the due to the machinations of a down & out Saudi spymaster Kamal Adham, (known as the Camp David Accords) they cultivate the likes of Atta, sheik Rahman, Seif Al Adel, Hamiz Rabia (the Al queda commander, snuffed out right around
the time of the purported NY Times story)
Sheik Quradwi, the fun loving Shaheed encouraging pen pal of Ken Livingstone, the whole Khan clan, including Omar, the lovable scamp who killed pfc Christopher
Speer, but he's not an unlawful alien combatant. Al Zawahiri, and his protege Abu Hamza Muhajir; the emir of Al Queda in Iraq. Oh and one can't forget the Sinai bomber,Back in the day, the Brits invade
Egypt during the addministration of a nominally non-interventionist prim minister; his predecessor had been defeated in Affghanistan, due to Maiwand nad all that. The Brits went in there to collect some bad debts, kind of the way our interventions in Nicaragua and Dominican
Republic started out, they stayed 40 years
official, 74 unofficially. Oh, and if you're not concerned enough, According to Aj. Venter's Allah's Bomb, Egypt is well on its way to it's own A-bomb program. A nuclear program in a Sunni Arab state, where
almost all the institutions have been islamicized by Wahhabi and Salafi influences; check please.
No big deal I say, Back then, they were only
armed with jezails; the Ak-47 of the day. Now it's F-16s (secured by Lanny Davis's lobbying) Ghauri and other weapons, from chinese derivations, and the nuclear weapons
provided by AQ Khan. According to William Langewiesche's Nuclear Bazaar, the campaign
to detect him, went by the boards so often, mostly because of the CIA's unwillingness to
nab him, presumably because he could lead us
to larger institutions, good luck with that,
Which brings me to Art Keller, the latest company man, warbling about the terror in Waziristan ( Wait a minute, I thought we weren't allowed in Waziristan. According his bio, featured on Chicago Public Radio,
*www.wbez.org/Program-wv-segementaspx?segment ID, he too was a member of Plames's
vaunted CPD of the Operations division.
Posted by: narciso | August 01, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Until there's a single casualty, of course.
Yeah, or untill we run out of em. I kinda always thought that was Clintoons strategy. Keep us run out of the good stuff so the Military couldn't just run off and do some good with it.
Posted by: Pofarmer | August 01, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Clarice here's your soundtrack.
"Over There
Johnnie, get your gun,
Get your gun, get your gun,
Take it on the run,
On the run, on the run.
Hear them calling, you and me,
Every son of liberty.
Hurry right away,
No delay, go today,
Make your daddy glad
To have had such a lad.
Tell your sweetheart not to pine,
To be proud her boy's in line.
(chorus sung twice)
Johnnie, get your gun,
Get your gun, get your gun,
Johnnie show the Hun
Who's a son of a gun.
Hoist the flag and let her fly,
Yankee Doodle do or die.
Pack your little kit,
Show your grit, do your bit.
Yankee to the ranks,
From the towns and the tanks.
Make your mother proud of you,
And the old Red, White and Blue.
(chorus sung twice)
Chorus
Over there, over there,
Send the word, send the word over there -
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum-tumming
Ev'rywhere.
So prepare, say a pray'r,
Send the word, send the word to beware.
We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back till it's over
Over there."
Enter Jack Murtha,
"Somewhere over the horizon
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Called Okinawa
Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true "
Posted by: PeterUK | August 01, 2007 at 01:33 PM