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.)

Comments

[Zoe]

It looks like Obama committed to raids in the event of actionable intelligence Pakistan will not act on, but left all options on the table (i.e., possible invasion) as the circumstances warrant. That doesn't sound like the reckless warmongering you have converted it into with your cherry-picking, or a commitment to invade without consulting with Musharraf first.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism;_ylt=Ajd4ooGwiSSuPRUv4Qjw1hms0NUE

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?hp

[SteveMG]

It looks like Obama committed to raids in the event of actionable intelligence Pakistan will not act on, but left all options on the table (i.e., possible invasion) as the circumstances warrant.

As others have attempted to point out, you are aware of the, let us say, delicate situation that Musharraf has on his hands in Pakistan?

And that ignoring those circumstances runs the risk of destabilizing a country with, among other major concerns, nuclear weapons?

This is reckless and irresponsible by Obama even though, in my opinion, he doesn't mean it.

He's just not ready for prime time. Few first time candidates for president are.

SMG

[PeterUK]

"It looks like Obama committed to raids in the event of actionable intelligence Pakistan will not act on, but left all options on the table (i.e., possible invasion) as the circumstances warrant."

You still haven't got the concept of sovereignty have you Zoe? You might not regard raids over the frontier as provocative,although I think America got pissy with the Mexicans,but Pakistan might.What if your raiding party ran into a substantial unit of Pakistan's Army? Run fight,get arrested and charged,grubby little show trial,condemnation at the UN,all been done before.But imagine a DEM getting slapped on the wrist by the Sec Gen of the UN,oh the shame!
But most importantly you have screwed up the relationship with and ally,and be sure the Ambassador of Pakistan will be asking for reassurances that this twerp isn't serious.

[Cecil Turner]

It looks like Obama committed to raids in the event of actionable intelligence Pakistan will not act on, but left all options on the table (i.e., possible invasion) as the circumstances warrant.

If he thinks an invasion is an option, he's too stupid to be C-in-C. Luckily for him, I don't see any indication he thinks that. Even luckier from him, I suspect LindaK's right that most of his supporters are even less well-informed on such matters.

[Pofarmer]

Oh, one thing I think that's certain with Obama, he'll never mean what he says untill it's been focus grouped afterwards and found that it was the correct thing to say. Up till that time, anything will be available for retraction. We'll have lot's of discussions on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[PeterUK]

"or a commitment to invade without consulting with Musharraf first."

"I say Mushy Old Chap,do you mind awfully if we invade,it's the only way I can convince the American people that someone called Hussein is tough on terror".

[Pofarmer]

he's too stupid to be C-in-C.

You could have left it at that. He's got great handlers though.

[Syl]

I think Obama is putting forward exactly what Bush is doing.

How's that for irony?

I don't think we have to worry that either Bush or Obama would invade Pakistan. What we DO have to worry about is the rhetoric coming out of Obama's mouth RIGHT NOW.

Didn't any of you see Pakistan's foreign minister on CNN the other day FURIOUS at American politicians for all their rhetoric about 'invading' Pakistan? It's not that HE believes we'll do it, it's that the dumb jihadis living there don't understand American politics and BELIEVE we're about to attack.

Jihad! Jihad!

Which puts Musharraf in danger RIGHT NOW!

That's why Obama should tone down the rhetoric. It has nothing to do with our parsing of his words.

Obama, through his rhetoric, is doing damage to our ally NOW!

I swear Democrats haven't a clue that their audience consists of more than their base. Sheesh.

[TerryeL]

Raids???Well who isn't in favor of raids to get the bad guys? This is so lame. If those raids are cross border incursions, they can be seen as an invasion, any fool knows that.

BTW, back when Clinton was president he did not consider accusing Saddam of trying to kill a president, of firing on our planes and breaking the cease fire, of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, of hiding wmd and lying to weapons inspectors to be all that provocative either.

Neither did he consider making the removal of Saddam from power, bombing Iraq, supporting attempts to overthrow Saddam as well as supporting sanctions against Iraq to be in any way a violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

But Saddam felt otherwise.

Sounds to me like another Democrat is talking about starting a fight he will not have the balls to finish.

[Pofarmer]

Well, Syl, there's another deal too.

As long as the Jihadi's are busy building mud forts to protect against 500 lb JDAM's, they ain't planning attacks on the U.S.

Strategery.

[Zoe]

You still haven't got the concept of sovereignty have you Zoe?

The United States, unlike the third-world former empire your backwater nation is, PeterUK, conducts counter-terror raids in foreign countries whenever it feels like it.

Just a fact.

[Zoe]

If he thinks an invasion is an option, he's too stupid to be C-in-C.

Then so are all the candidates running in both parties and so is the current President. They all say "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran. Oh, no, wait. That leaves Kucinich and Paul as candidates you'd support.

[Pofarmer]

I think Zoe has access to his/her own facts.

[TerryeL]

Zoe:

We do???And it seems to me that people like Obama are usually bitching a lot about that sort of thing. I mean here the guy is talking about sucking up to Chavez, Castro, Kim Ilwhatshiface, the mad mullahs and just about anyone who lights a match to an American flag, but when it comes to the sovereignty of another nation? Screw em as Kos would say.

I get it, when Obama says it is a good thing, when a Republican talks war it is bad bad bad.

[Zoe]

As others have attempted to point out, you are aware of the, let us say, delicate situation that Musharraf has on his hands in Pakistan?

Did you read the articles I linked to?

[Zoe]

I get it, when Obama says it is a good thing, when a Republican talks war it is bad bad bad.

I voted for Bush in 2004. You're an idiot.

[TerryeL]

All options are on the table? Well needless to say that means nukes.

Speaking of nukes, let us imagine that there is a backlash, Musharaff falls, the new guys use tactical nukes against our navy which is right there, what does our fearless leader Hussein Obama do then? Offer to chat?

[Pofarmer]

"All options are on the table", is a bit different than saying, "If Mr. Abdhul X is found to be in Iran, we're gonna invade."

[Zoe]

All options are on the table? Well needless to say that means nukes.

Yes, when reporters ask, would you be willing to use nukes on Iran, or go to war with Iran, the standard response is "You can't take any options off the table. All options are on the table." Yes, that means nukes, as nukes are a part of our arsenal and they have deterrence value. Do you know ANYTHING about foreign policy?

[Pofarmer]

And when did Iran and Pakistan get lumped together?

[Zoe]

a bit different than saying, "If Mr. Abdhul X is found to be in Iran, we're gonna invade."

Good thing Obama didn't say "we're gonna invade". He said Pakistan could be "at risk of an invasion".

[Zoe]

And when did Iran and Pakistan get lumped together?

You're an idiot. No one lumped them together.

[SteveMG]

Did you read the articles I linked to?

Sorry, but none of your posts seem to indicate that you know this. Perhaps, as well, it would be smart to "cc" them to the Senator.

Second, they don't call them covert programs because it sounds sexy.

Covert as in secret. Unannounced. Not official policy.

It's done to, among other things, give our allies cover. Along with us.

SMG

[Pofarmer]

Do you know ANYTHING about foreign policy?

Enough to know that saying outright you'd invade Pakistan isn't smart.

[TerryeL]

Zoe:

I voted for Bush in 2004 as well. But before Bush came along I voted for Democrats so maybe I am an idiot.

Speaking of idiots, you have not dealt with the basic issue at hand, that Obama is supposedly criticizing the administration for not taking the same stand he {Obama} is, while at the same time you are saying that Bush's position is the same as the President's. Note the contradiction?

So what exactly is Obama complaining about then? Other than Iraq ofcourse.

[Pofarmer]

You're an idiot. No one lumped them together.

Then why did you switch the subject?

[TerryeL]

Why is Zoe calling everyone idiots? Is she just rude? I know it kind of hurts my feelings.

[Zoe]

Second, they don't call them covert programs because it sounds sexy....

Except they're not really all the covert. They're just denied. Just like the secret prisons aren't secret. They're reported on in the Wash Post.

saying outright you'd invade Pakistan isn't smart

No one said this.

[TerryeL]

Why is Zoe calling everyone idiots? Is she just rude? I know it kind of hurts my feelings.

[Pofarmer]

Good thing Obama didn't say "we're gonna invade". He said Pakistan could be "at risk of an invasion".

Like I said, we'll be discussing what the meaning "is" is.

[Zoe]

Then why did you switch the subject?

I did not switch the subject. The question is the wisdom of leaving a harsh deterrent on the table. The commenter suggested that Obama was stupid for leaving a risk of invasion on the table with regard to Pakistan. But every single Presidential candidate, other than Paul and Kucinich, takes the same position and uses the same language with regard to Iran: "all options are on the table," which anyone informed knows includes possible nuclear attack.

How exactly is Obama stupid for saying a possible invasion is on the table with regard to Pakistan, but everyone else is supersmart for saying a nuclear attack is on the table with regard to Iran? That seems like a bizarre double-standard. If you're going to call Obama stupid, call every Republican stupid for his comments on Iran. Indeed, call Tony Snow stupid for using "all options are on the table" in every presser in which he's asked whether nuclear attack against Iran or aerial strike on Iran is possible.

[TerryeL]

Maybe I am an idiot, I should have said "at the same time you are saying Obama's position is the same as the President's".

Obama being the operative word and all.

[Pofarmer]

Except they're not really all the covert. They're just denied. Just like the secret prisons aren't secret. They're reported on in the Wash Post.

I have to admit, that made me laugh. Good thing I wasn't drinking anything at the time.

BTW

If somebody came to your door and said "Hey, ya better buy dis here insurance or dere is a risk your house might jus burn down."

How would you take that?

[Zoe]

Speaking of idiots, you have not dealt with the basic issue at hand, that Obama is supposedly criticizing the administration for not taking the same stand he {Obama} is, while at the same time you are saying that Bush's position is the same as the President's.

No. I am saying that Bush and Obama's positions are similar in some respects and different in other crucial, material ways.

Apples and oranges are both fruits. That isn't a contradiction.

[TerryeL]

Zoe:

That is not true.

[Pofarmer]

How exactly is Obama stupid for saying a possible invasion is on the table with regard to Pakistan,

Because the current govt of Pakistan is an Ally, the current govt of Iran is not.

Capice?

[Zoe]

If somebody came to your door and said "Hey, ya better buy dis here insurance or dere is a risk your house might jus burn down."

Brilliant foriegn policy analysis. You should run for President.

[PeterUK]

"The United States, unlike the third-world former empire your backwater nation is, PeterUK,"

Tempus fugit litte Zoe

"conducts counter-terror raids in foreign countries whenever it feels like it."

Now that isn't a very Democrat attitude,and be honest sometimes they go wrong,as counter terror operations often do.

[TerryeL]

They are different in that Bush is not going out of his way to put an ally at risk just so he can look tough.

[SteveMG]

Except they're not really all the covert. They're just denied. Just like the secret prisons aren't secret. They're reported on in the Wash Post.

Yes, this is exactly why Obama's open declaration was a mistake.

Of course the US will take action IF we have demonstrable evidence that top al-Qaeda operatives are located in Waziristan.

Only you don't explicitly say or admit you have that policy.

It's Musharraf's ass that is hanging out there.

And if his ass goes, our ass is then hanging out there.

SMG

[Zoe]

Because the current govt of Pakistan is an Ally, the current govt of Iran is not.

Yeah, and Obama's point is PAKISTAN ISN'T REALLY AN ALLY. PAKISTAN IS A STATE THAT IS HARBORING TERRORISTS, WITH A POPULATION THAT IS HOSTILE TO AMERICAN INTERESTS. Hence, Bush's erroneous policy.

[Zoe]

Only you don't explicitly say or admit you have that policy.

Why not? You think Pakistanis don't have the Internet? The government publishes policy statements of this kind all the time.

[Zoe]

Now that isn't a very Democrat attitude

Talk to me when you earn your citizenship in America.

[hit and run]

Do please make sure you have read the MORE part of Tom's post linking to a Hot Air clip where Bush says much the same thing in an interview with Wolf Blitzer as Obama did today.

BLITZER: If you had good actionable intelligence, in Pakistan, where they [bin Laden and other AQ leaders] were would you give the order to kill them or capture them...

BUSH: Absolutely

BLITZER: ...and go into Pakistan...

BUSH: Absolutely

BLITZER: ...even though the Pakistanis say that is their sovereign territory?

BUSH: Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice.

[Zoe]

That is not true.

Ooh. Ipse dixit. What an argument. Have a nice night, fellas. Have fun voting for the Kucinich-Paul ticket.

[PeterUK]

"I voted for Bush in 2004. "

I had no idea the US had lowered the age of suffrage to fifteen.

[Zoe]

Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice.

Yeah, and newsflash, instead of doing that, he invaded iraq for NO GOSH-DARNED REASON!!!!!!! WITHOUT PLANNING PROPERLY!!! AND NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!!! Which Obama opposed. Whoops! I guess they're not the same.

And now I go.

[Pofarmer]

Uhmmm,

Bush's erroneous policy let us sweep the Taliban from Afghanistan with very low numbers and very low casualties. How would it have been to have gone through Pakistan first? Plus his erroneous policy has us currently on both flanks of Iran, with Pakistan, at least a nominal ally at our backs.

What would you do? Fight the entire middle east at once?

[TerryeL]

So when exactly did Rudy say he would invade Pakistan?

The idea here is that Obama is pretty much saying we will go in and if Musharaff does not like it, too bad.

I don't hear other candidates saying anything like that.

If Bush even makes note of the fact that Iran is helping kill our troops he is seen as looking for cover for his own bad policy. When the administration says that all options are on the table in regards to stopping Iran from getting nukes, this is seen as provocative.

However, if Obama just announces that he is considering a military incursion into Pakistan with or without the approval of the leader of that country, we are supposed to believe this is business as usual.

[Pofarmer]

Which Obama opposed

Obama was conveniently in the State Legislature in Illinios. His godlike presience could not be injected into the debate.

[Pofarmer]

Yeah, and newsflash, instead of doing that, he invaded iraq for NO GOSH-DARNED REASON!!!!!!! WITHOUT PLANNING PROPERLY!!! AND NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!!!

And had the majority of the Dim presidential candidates out stumping for it!!!!

[Zoe]

Bush's erroneous policy let us sweep the Taliban from Afghanistan with very low numbers and very low casualties. How would it have been to have gone through Pakistan first?

No one is saying we should have hit Pakistan first. The argument is that sending troops to Iraq diverted them from Afghanistan and permitted the escape into Pakistan, which is the current problem and a result of Bush's failures. Obama is proposing to reverse Bush's failures, instead of sticking to his failed policy, which was a result of his poor judgment, the poor judgment that got us into Iraq.

[Zoe]

And had the majority of the Dim presidential candidates out stumping for it!!!!

Exactly. They were stupid. And Obama wasn't one of them.

[hit and run]

And going back to Geraghty, we find the Hillary position regarding Pakistan...

US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said if America sends its troops to the tribal region, they should go with Pakistani troops and not on their own.

At a fund-raising dinner arranged for her by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, she rejected the suggestion by some US officials and lawmakers that the United States should conduct unilateral military operations in the tribal region to destroy alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens.

Such a move, she said, would not produce the desired results and would create new problems. Only a combined effort by the Pakistani and US troops could destroy militant hideouts in the area, she added.

[PeterUK]

"If he thinks an invasion is an option, he's too stupid to be C-in-C.

Then so are all the candidates running in both parties and so is the current President. They all say "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran."

But Iran isn't an ally which affords you access to Afghanistan,without which you really are looking at helicopters of Embassy roofs,Iran is calling for your destruction.

[Zoe]

However, if Obama just announces that he is considering a military incursion into Pakistan with or without the approval of the leader of that country, we are supposed to believe this is business as usual.

Well, it's business as usual for someone who knows what to do.

[hit and run]

And how are Obama's words being treated in the nutroots?

Lefty blogger Jerome Armstrong describes Obama's policy as, "Basically, a continuation of the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks in the mid-east, with Obama adding Pakistan to the list."

So when Obama was calling Hillary "Bush-Lite" he was positioning himself for the "Bush-on-'Roids" title?

[TerryeL]

Zoe:

So we are back where we started from, if Bush said the same thing Obama did, then why is Obama criticizing Bush? Is this not unilateral? Preemptive? etc.

That is the point. Bush has made it plain that if he could lob in a cruise missile, send in people and just get the bad guys he would. No one is disputing that.

But Bush did not go out of his way to call out the Pakistanis when he knows we need their cooperation while at the same time offering to talk to every dictator on the planet.

[Zoe]

But Iran isn't an ally which affords you access to Afghanistan

No, but Iran is making Iraq hell, and Iran's population is friendly to you, and Iran's government could be displaced with lesser force, and attacking Iran would destroy your ties with several European allies, increase the value of obtaining nukes to rogue states, and provoke Russia and China to oppose your interests more strongly. Gee, not so smart.

[TerryeL]

Obama is just trying to have it both ways.

[Pofarmer]

Exactly. They were stupid. And Obama wasn't one of them.

No, Obama wasn't on the scene. All he or you can do is project what he/you thinks he might have done.

[Zoe]

if Bush said the same thing Obama did, then why is Obama criticizing Bush?

Are you dense? This is not about talk, it's about what you're actually going to do. "They may have said vaguely similar things" is not a defense.

[Zoe]

No, Obama wasn't on the scene.

Not true. He spoke at the Democratic convention that year, and his renunciation of the war vote was covered.

[PeterUK]

"PAKISTAN ISN'T REALLY AN ALLY. PAKISTAN IS A STATE THAT IS HARBORING TERRORISTS, WITH A POPULATION THAT IS HOSTILE TO AMERICAN INTERESTS."

So is California.

[hit and run]

Oh, and TM, go to that Geraghty link for the Richardson response you were looking for. I've probably copy and pasted enough from the fine gentleman.

[Zoe]

Obama is just trying to have it both ways.

You are an idiot. If you don't see a difference between Obama's policy and Bush's policy, you are blind.

[Pofarmer]

and Iran's population is friendly to you

I'm kinda tired of that one. That's the same line that the NYT's etal bandied about about Iraq. Turned out it's not so much what the population wants, it what the Jihadi's want that can make things tougher.

You think Iran isn't well stocked with Jihadi's? Iran isn't the Secular mid-east paradise Iraq was before the fall.

[Zoe]

So is California.

You heard it here! PeterUK CALLS FOR INVADING CALIFORNIA!!!!!

[Zoe]

Iran isn't the Secular mid-east paradise Iraq was before the fall.

No one said that. The point is the contrast with Pakistan, not the contrast with Iran before the fall. Distort away!

[Pofarmer]

You are an idiot. If you don't see a difference between Obama's policy and Bush's policy, you are blind.

Exactly, Obama's policy gets us thrown out of Afghanistan and into open conflict with both the Jihadi's and the military in Pakistan.

Brilliant!!!!!!

[clarice]

I heart the nutroots, Hit. Quit picking on them. (P.S. Thanks for sending me the copy of the letter you sent to Nader BEGGING him to run again.Great job!)

[Pofarmer]

PeterUK CALLS FOR INVADING CALIFORNIA!!!!!

Well I don't totally disagree, but I'm more for a fence myself.

[TerryeL]

No, it is not business as usual. While it is true that special forces do go into some very dangerous situations covertly.... the President does not {as a general rule} give a heads up to the world media that operations are about to begin.

It is one thing for a man in a position like Musharaff is in to cooperate with the US or to look the other way for that matter, it is another to make a formal declaration of the intent to invade or send in troops.

[Zoe]

So when Obama was calling Hillary "Bush-Lite" he was positioning himself for the "Bush-on-'Roids" title?

Jerome Armstrong is a KNOWN hater of Obama. He has said it himself.

If you want a representative site, check Taylor Marsh, whose blogposts are regularly posted by Hillary on HillaryHub. She approved of the speech.

[BarbaraS]

Obama's statement is meant to drive a wedge between Bush and Mushareff. If he is so stupid not to know the fine line Mushareff is walking, his handlers aren't. This is just another effort to thwart Bush's effort's on the GWOT. This is just another member of congress trying to intervene in the foreign policy of the President much like Pelosi. This is what dims do in their efforts to lose this war.

[Pofarmer]

Iran isn't the Secular mid-east paradise Iraq was before the fall.

No one said that. The point is the contrast with Pakistan, not the contrast with Iran before the fall. Distort away!

It's known as sarcasm.

[Zoe]

the President does not {as a general rule} give a heads up to the world media that operations are about to begin.

That isn't what he was doing. He was making a public threat. Just like every candidate does when s/he says all options are on the table regarding Iran.

[Zoe]

is another to make a formal declaration of the intent to invade

Yes, he made a formal declaration, by tucking in a subordinate clause in his speech. You are silly.

[BarbaraS]

OT I saw on Fox that Texas researchers have made an exhausting study on why people have sex. They came up with 237 reasons. The top reason was lust. Who knew?

[TerryeL]

I am dense? Listen to yourself. We have Obama running all over the place talking about Bush the warmonger and how we need a new direction and then wham bam he turns around and talks about sending troops into Pakistan.

But that is ok.

That is different, no it is the same. No you are an idiot.

But they are harboring terrorists!!

So was Iraq.

[Pofarmer]

There you go, conflating Iran and Pakistan again.

Pakistan is NOT our enemy at least not today. Why make them one?

[Zoe]

Exactly, Obama's policy gets us thrown out of Afghanistan

Riiiiiiiight.

[Jane]

Because the current govt of Pakistan is an Ally, the current govt of Iran is not.

Apparently Obama is not in favor of being allied with Pakistan.

Good to know.

[Zoe]

conflating

There is no conflation. I sincerely doubt you even know what the word means.

[Zoe]

Apparently Obama is not in favor of being allied with Pakistan.

He didn't say that. He said if they're allies, they should act like it. How reckless!!!!!

[PeterUK]

"The argument is that sending troops to Iraq diverted them from Afghanistan and permitted the escape into Pakistan,"

Afghanistan came first.

"No, but Iran is making Iraq hell, and Iran's population is friendly to you, and Iran's government could be displaced with lesser force,"

Ye Gods and little fishes the imbecile wants to invade Iran now,Obama has the retard vote sewn up.

[Pofarmer]

Look. At. A. Map.

It's gonna be kinda hard to get to Afghanistan, or even to the Northern Frontier of Pakistan to get your bad guys, if you have Jihadi's on every hill top shooting stinger missles at you. Ask the Russians about it sometime.

[hit and run]

Clarice, I wasn't clear, but it was still Geraghty I was quoting with regards to Jerome Armstong.

Zoe, would you say Obama's position, compared with Clinton's, puts Obama to the right of Clinton regarding Pakistan.

Hence, the Bush-Lite vs Bush on Roids statement?

Regardless of Mr. Jerome's personal views of Obama?

[Pofarmer]

conflate \kuhn-FLAYT\, transitive verb:
1. To bring together; to fuse together; to join or meld.
2. To combine (as two readings of a text) into one whole

Lumping both Pakistan and Iran into the enemies list sure looks like conflation to me.

[TerryeL]

Zoe:

Talking to you is like watching a puppy chase its tail.

Yes he is... no he isn't... you are an idiot....

Oh yeah, I am dense all right. I remember listening to all those Democrats carry on about what a threat Saddam was and how we were going to kick his ass blah blah blah blah and when it hit the fan...they turn into freaking pacifists.

So tell me, has Obama announced what his plan for occupation of the northwestern territories is yet? After all, we have to have a plan.

[Zoe]

Afghanistan came first.

Yes, that was my point. You can only escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan is you start in Afghanistan. And you can only divert troops to Iraq from Afghanistan if they are first in Afghanistan. Learn to read.

Ye Gods and little fishes the imbecile wants to invade Iran now

I said the exact opposite. My point is that nuking Iran would be stupid, which is why I cataloged a parade of horribles that would result. I didn't realize literacy in Britain was on such decline.

[Zoe]

I remember listening to all those Democrats carry on about what a threat Saddam was and how we were going to kick his ass blah blah blah blah and when it hit the fan...they turn into freaking pacifists.

And Obama wasn't one of those Democrats. You're conflating Obama with "all other Democrats. Aah, a teachable moment.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Iran's government could be displaced with lesser force, and attacking Iran would destroy your ties with several European allies...

OK, I'll bite. How is displacing Iran's government with lesser force different from attacking it?

[hit and run]

to the right of Clinton

To the chickenhawk side, if you prefer, instead of the left-right paradigm.

[TerryeL]

And yes, we did just what the Democrats said they wanted when it came to Afghanistan. We went with NATO and that was long before we went to Iraq. November 2001 we went into Afghanistan. March 2003 we went into Iraq.

BTW, if we did go into Pakistan, what are the chances the terrorists would just go to Iraq. After all, Obama intends to abandon that country. So if I was a terrorist and Obama wins the White House, that is where I would go.

[Zoe]

Lumping both Pakistan and Iran into the enemies list

Isn't my point at all. My point is that one shouldn't have a double-standard. If it leads to XYZ, [insert policy] is bad. If leaving the option of invading Pakistan on the table is bad because it could result in XYZ, then leaving the option of nuking Iran on the table is bad because it could result in XYZ. Just be consistent. Evaluate all politicians by the same standard.

[Zoe]

How is displacing Iran's government with lesser force different from attacking it?

Soft power isn't hard power.

[Pofarmer]

You're conflating Obama with "all other Democrats. Aah, a teachable moment.

They all look alike to me.;0)

[PeterUK]

"That isn't what he was doing. He was making a public threat"

How very statesman like,a mere senator threatening the President of a foreign country.Obama is even more stupid than Zoe,who is a poor replacement for semanticleo.

[TerryeL]

Zoe:

Are you saying that all the troops in Iraq were first in Afghanistan? And the truth is we were dealing with Iraq, long before we ever seriously considered going into Afghanistan. After all, it was not the Afghan Liberation Act Bill Clinton signed in 1998.

And Obama may not have been one of those Democrats supporting the war in Iraq, but he sounds to me like the typical Democrat agitating for a military confrontation he does not have any real intention of sustaining or supporting.