McCain Bombs Barack Without Permission

From the LA Times:

McCain blasts Obama as 'naive'
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama "naive" today and faulted the Illinois senator for waffling on an earlier commitment to abide by public financing limits.

One day after Obama scored double-digit victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii in his drive toward the Democratic presidential nomination, McCain blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan. "The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission."

...In a conference call with reporters to respond, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice said that McCain was "misrepresenting and distorting Barack Obama's positions" and argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."

Unless Obama has repudiated his foreign policy speech of last Aug 1 (link 1, 2), I fail to see how McCain has misrepresented and distorted his position.  Here we go from Obama, Aug 1 2007:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005 (see NY Times). If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Well, the proposed 2005 raid was more than just bombing - it was a Special Ops "snatch and grab" scheme to capture some top terrorists.  Is the Obama press flack arguing that McCain's distortion is the description of "bombing" only?  Ridiculous.

And it is hardly as if McCain is opening a new line of attack here - Obama was roundly derided by his fellow Dems when he floated this notion last summer.

James Robbins of NRO provided more background on the reality of US operations in Waziristan and environs:

The decision not to go ahead with the 2005 mission was regrettable — assuming it would have succeeded, that is. But Senator Obama’s umbrage notwithstanding, that was not the end of the game. Instead we chose to fight smarter rather than harder. Over the next two years there followed a series of much less risky missile strikes on the same type of targets. On May 7, 2005, high-ranking al Qaeda operative Haitham al-Yemeni was taken out by a Hellfire missile attack in North Waziristan. On December 4, 2005, Hamza Rabia, reportedly al Qaeda's #3, met the same fate. On January 13, 2006, four al Qaeda operatives were eliminated in a similar manner in Damadola. This attack narrowly missed al-Zawahiri, but killed his son-in-law, Abdul al-Maghribi, who helped run al Qaeda media operations. Al-Zawahiri was again targeted (unsuccessfully) on October 30, 2006, in a missile strike against an Islamic school in Chingai, Pakistan.

All of these attacks were plausibly deniable, and none took place with Pakistan’s permission, at least not publicly. In fact the Pakistanis found ways to explain away around the obvious, such as stating that one of the explosions was not the result of a missile strike but simply an accident while the terrorist was making bombs.

Note that in each case the U.S. was using actionable intelligence (defined as intelligence that triggers the execution of pre-planned defense and security capabilities already identified and enabled). So there is nothing very innovative in saying we will act on that which is actionable; that is U.S. policy. There is also no reason to believe that sending troops rather than missiles in would have led to better outcomes. In fact they would probably have been much worse since the U.S. would have had to explain not only the failure to take down the intended target, but also the incursion itself.

Watching Obama try to persuade McCain and the rest of us that he is ready to command US forces ought to be fun.  And with Hillarity paving the way, who knows where this road will take the Dems?

LOOKS LIKE McCAIN HAS LOST THE LIBS:  Matt Yglesias and Joe Klein score this for Obama.  Joe Klein is especially droll here:

And, in fact, Obama was merely saying that he supported current U.S. policy.

Well, McCain's point in the La Times (but not the speech to which Klein referred) was that a key part of US policy is "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies".

Comments

[clarice]

Yes. I've always thought this was his fatal mistake.

[Don]

Your idiocy makes me sick. Put up or shut up:

Is it official U.S. policy RIGHT FUCKING NOW that we will not bomb terrorist targets in Pakistan without official Pakistani permission?

Yes or no.

[clarice]

I believe we have had a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with Pakistan at the moment.

[GMax]

Temper temper if you dont play nice you may get sent to the corner for a time out!

And I really like the Obama camp response of "misleading and distorting" .

Would that be anything like the often repeated Obama line about staying in Iraq for a 100 years, when talking about McCain. Or is that more like exagerating for the sake for clarity? Just sayin"

[Don]

Do any of you jackasses know who Abu Laith al-Libi was?

Do you know how he died?

[clarice]

I'd say we all do.
I'd also say that it is obvious that Pakistan cannot openly admit to working with us by permitting these missile strikes, but has not objected ..

[TexasToast]

Interesting that the coiner of "Bomb Bomb Iran" is suggesting that we "Ask Pervez", so to speak.

With a nod to our poets of this day --

To bomb, or not to bomb: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Iran,
Or to take arms against a sea of terrorists in Pakistan,
And by opposing end them?

[GMax]

OOOO is this a guessing game? I love guessing games, especially with Moveon morons with foul mouths...

[Don]

Ok I'll spare you a google search.

He was a long wanted Al Qaeda honcho that a CIA drone just killed by a missile attack -inside Pakistan-and Musharaf was informed only after the operation wwas underway.

IOW Obama's statement is current U.S. policy.

[GMax]

What happened to the "Global Test" we had to pass last election cycle? Now its different? Even if there is some activity that might only have plausible deniability, that is much different that announcing to the world that you are going to bomb an ally. I would think a died in the wool Global Tester would get that distinction, its about as different as Amy Grant and Brittany Spears.

[MayBee]

Do you know how he died?

Do you know foreign leaders sometimes say they had no idea that US was going to do something, when in fact they did know?

[Don]

"that you are going to bomb an ally"

What kind of idiot are you? Where the hell does Obama say that? Seriously where?

[SteveMG]

McCain has to tackle that "he'll end the war in Iraq" line hard and repeatedly.

Abandoning Iraq to al-Qaeda will only permit them to setup base in another country, like Afghanistan. From there, our allies and, eventually, Americans, will be attacked.

Say it again and again and again.

Obama knows this and doesn't really want to leave; but, as someone once said, words stand for ideas and ideas have consequences.

I know, Keith Olbermann won't like it.

[SteveMG]

How does launching a missile from a drone equal bombing entire al-Qaeda sanctuaries and villages in Pakistan?

He who can't tell the difference is not paying attention.

[Rick Ballard]

So BHO promises to use Wedding Party Seekers rather than Camel Butt Seekers? Good for him. Has someone shown him where Waziristan is yet? Briefed him on the concept of the regional autonomy granted by Pakistan to Waziristan that has given Musharaff the political cover to watch without comment?

I'd rather that McCain asked BHO what business he had in sending people to Syria to kiss Assad's butt myself but I suppose he'll get around to it.

[Don]

Yes, Maybee you're exactly right! Let's be sure and tell the Pakistani government-chockful of Taliban sympathisers-exactly what all our plans are for Pakistani operations and get pre-approval. Brilliant. But looks like McCain already thought of it.

[GMax]

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Direct quote for the reading impaired.

I am sure that quote will fix our badly broken relationship with lots of countries, especially those with large Muslim populations. Stand up and shout it we dont need no stinkin" nuance!

[Don]

Ok SteveMG, quote me where Obama says he wants to take out "entire al-Qaeda sanctuaries and villages in Pakistan?"

Please. I'm begging you.

[Don]

Gmax-you're a moron.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

I'll repeat my question-That's official U.S. policy RIGHT FUCKIN NOW!

Yes or no?

[Don]

"that has given Musharaff the political cover to watch without comment?"

Like Musharaff had a choice in the matter? You guys have operated in this moronic echo chamber for too long.

[MayBee]

Don- Obama has asked his followers to be the change they are looking for. What would he think of your language here?

[Rick Ballard]

I hought BHO was going to change things. It appears that the argument here is that he will change nothing - just continue current policy.

Gosh, that's not very exciting.

[capitano]

This Don guy is good.

So good in fact that I'm considering crossing over and voting in the Democrat Texas primary -- for Hillary.

I was firmly in the "Take Her Out - Remove All Doubt" camp, but Don has me rethinking my position.

[MayBee]

So Don- you take Bush and Musharaff at their word about what happened? How often do you do that?

[Bill in AZ]

I 'spect pete... er... martin... er... oh wait, it's Don today, is who SteveMG was talking about waving the other day

[Don]

maybee-it's b/c I'm frustated by the idiocy I encounter here lurking.

Look at maguires FPP-it's all up there.

He's got a long pull quote from National Review describing what we've been in pakistan the last few years-and what do you know-it's exactly what-I mean exactly-what Obama said we should be doing.

If anything, Obama should be criticized for stating the obvious.

Meanwhile, I've now asked two people to quote me where Obama says he wants to bomb Pakistan in general and no response.

Sure this was going to devolve into the standard oh so cute vapid JOM thread, so I just want to interject some reality.

[Don]

That is Don Martin BillAz-my homage to one of the greatest artists of the 20th century.

[SteveMG]

Obama says his policy is "Getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Battlefield in Pakistan?

What does one do to battlefield?

In a war?

[Don]

Maybee-Musharaff just lost an election if you hadn't heard. Nevertheless he's vowing to stick around. The guy is toast sooner or later.

I'm not surprised you think we're sharing everything with him, but even Bush isn't that dumb. I hope.

[MayBee]

Don-
Here is how Susan Rice defended Obama:

argued that the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

Is that true?

[Don]

Steve MG-just look at the pullquote maguire posted above. You kill Al Qaeda in Pakistan, you fruitcake.

Still waiting for you to quote Obama wanting to bomb Pakistani villages.

Are we bombing Afghani villages btw? Is there a battlefield there?

[SteveMG]

is who SteveMG was talking about waving the other day

Same wave; different day.

I guess every day is, er, waving day to these types.

Sort of like Groundhog Day.

Are we Phil Connors? Or is he?

[Don]

maybee-the Obama quote has been conveniently posted above by Maguire.

You're now the third person I'm asking to show me where he says he wants to bomb an ally.

[MayBee]

Maybee-Musharaff just lost an election if you hadn't heard.

Huh. What I'd heard is that he recently won an election, and his party just lost an election.

I don't think we're sharing everything with Musharaff. I think we have an understanding with him, and part of that understanding is him granting us permission to perform certain acts.

[Don]

Ok, I'll ask again:

Is it official U.S. policy RIGHT NOW that we will not kill a terrorist in Pakistan without official Pakistani approval.

Yes or no?

[MayBee]

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Is 'act' a really obscure concept or something? Did he mean "act" like Scarlett Johansen acts?

[Bill in AZ]

Meanwhile, I've now asked two people to quote me where Obama says he wants to bomb Pakistan in general and no response.

Way up above you asked if it was "official US policy" (it's not). You dropped that, and now you've added "bomb Pakistan in general".

That's typical libtard moving goalposts, and it's pointless to bother responding.

[SteveMG]

Obama says that the battlefield in the war against al-Qaeda must shift from Iraq to the battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Al-qaeda is now located in mountain villages in Waziristan. They are protected by and work with the tribal peoples living there.

Obama wants to attack those locations in Pakistan.

It will take more than drone missiles to eradicate those al-Qaeda sanctuaries.

You turn with one caveat: Respond as an adult and not as a juvenile.

If you can't, we'll end it here. Got it?

[MayBee]

"McCain promises more war in Iraq," she said. "Obama will end the war in Iraq and focus on terrorists in Afghanistan."

It seems to be Obama's position that terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan are worth going after, terrorists in Iraq....not so much.
Why does that make sense to people?

[Don]

Ok Bill in Az-you say it's not official U.S. policy. I think you're wrong, but tell me what you think official U.S. policy is?

SteveMG-Obama said he wants to go after terrorists in Pakistan.

You don't??? Oh right, Iraq. Yep. That's where all the terrorists are. Never mind.

[SteveMG]

As we know (or should) there is a vast difference between using Predator drone missiles to attack a single house or car versus bombing al-Qaeda sanctuaries in mountain villages in Waziristan or northern Pakistan.

Obama says we must move the battlefield to al-Qaeda locations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In order to remove al-Qaeda from Pakistan, the US will have to do much more than launch occasional drone missiles at isolated targets. We will need to have a much more robust military action.

I think that's a bad idea.

Others can disagree.

[Rick Ballard]

Maybe BHO War doesn't involve real bombs. Maybe he's gonna drop Hope bombs in order to effect lasting Change? Maybe it's just a matter of talking to the Taliban headchoppers and convincing them that Change is the wave of the future - if they only will dare to Hope?

Toss in a little grassroots organizing and a few job programs and it sure sounds like a winner.

[Don]

btw-here's my original question, which so far has received one unsubstantied "no"

"Is it official U.S. policy RIGHT F****** NOW that we will not bomb terrorist targets in Pakistan without official Pakistani permission?"

Yes or no?

[SteveMG]

You don't??? Oh right, Iraq. Yep. That's where all the terrorists are. Never mind..

You support invading Waziristan?

From everything I've read, in order to remove al-Qaeda from that region will require an extensive military operation.

I'm tempted to use the chickenhawk smear but will hold my powder.

[SteveMG]

official Pakistani permission

Who knows?

These things are often done sub rosa.

[Don]

Bill in AZ-you confused me, but I blame you. I'm saying it is NOT our policy to seek pakistan's permission for operations to take out terrorists inside the country-which is exactly what Obama said-which is pretty much confirmed by (the simplest means) the national Review quote above.

SteveMG-you really have me confused. What do you propose doing about Al Qaeda hanging out in a country with 100% real actual weapons of mass destruction?

[MayBee]

Don-
In the article posted above, Dr. Susan Rice, Obama's advisor, defended Obama by saying:

the Democrat "never suggested bombing an ally."

Is that true?

[SteveMG]

Bush has said that the US will attack al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without getting prior approval from that government.

But as we have said ad nauseam, using Predator drone missiles to attack isolated targets is far different than going after al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan.

The latter, from what I've read (who knows? I'm no military expert), will entail a much larger US bootprint.

[Don]

Are you saying that the war on terror can't be won Steve MG?

Seriously. And please feel free to use the chickenhawk smear. I never hesitate.

[Don]

"Bush has said that the US will attack al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan without getting prior approval from that government."

FINALLY!!!!!!

We have a winner. One honest guy:SteveMG.

Now if anyyone else can explain how what Bush has said-(per SteveMG mind you, but I'll pull the quote if you want)-differs from what Obama said, I'll admit I know nothing.

[Don]

Maybee-it's true.

[MayBee]

Hope bombs in order to effect lasting Change?

Not hope bombs, Rick. Acts of Hope.
He didn't threaten to bomb anything, just to act. He'll send in Mimes of Mass Destruction.

[SteveMG]

What do you propose doing about Al Qaeda hanging out in a country with 100% real actual weapons of mass destruction?

No, we're discussing what Obama said he would do.

He has stated that in order to more effectively defeat al-Qaeda, we must leave Iraq and shift our resources to the "battlefield" in Pakistan.

He believes that launching missiles from drones is insufficient.

In order to eradicate al-Qaeda from Pakistan, we'll need to bomb them out of their locations or send troops there. There being villages in Waziristan and the Northwest territories.

Not a good idea at this time.

Of course, all of this is moot. Because he doesn't mean it.

[MayBee]

Don-
He just threatened to act? You're going with that?

[Anon]

Don-

Dude!

Take a deep breath-

You're not even agreeing with yourself here:

Bill in AZ-you confused me, but I blame you.

And damn it-

Is or won't Obama , damn it get the hell out or in Iraq-like right the flip now?

[am I speaking your language ?]

[Rick Ballard]

"I'll admit I know nothing."

I don't believe that will be necessary.

I guess understand your point now. Vote for BHO because he promises to do exactly what Bush has done.

That's kind of a let down after all the excitement about Hope and Change.

[SteveMG]

Now if anyyone else can explain how what Bush has said-(per SteveMG mind you, but I'll pull the quote if you want)-differs from what Obama said, I'll admit I know nothing.

We've tried this about a dozen times today.

Can you not see the distinction between launching pinprick drone missiles at isolated targets versus bombing al-Qaeda locations in Pakistan?

And that the latter is something that is potentially far more destabilizing than the former?

Obama criticized Bush's policy in Pakistan. He said we needed to move from the battlefield in Iraq to the battlefield in Pakistan.

That means he doesn't like the policy of isolated drone missile attacks. He thinks it's insufficient. He wants a more aggressive military action in Pakistan.

[MayBee]

This is how the NYTs describes the 2005 cancelled plan:

Officials said one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was that the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without General Musharraf’s permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.

This is what we called off that Obama criticized Bush/Rumsfeld for. Would Obama have gone through with it?

[clarice]

It's the Dems' "over there" policy--wherever we are we should be somewhere else. I seem to recall it was Iran, not Iraq just a few years ago. And then there was Murtha's idea --Guam.

[SteveMG]

Maybee:
This is what we called off that Obama criticized Bush/Rumsfeld for. Would Obama have gone through with it?

Good post. It underscores the differences; at least on the surface.

Obama says he would; but he wouldn't.

But saying you would take more extensive actions is itself damaging.

We all know that governments say one thing publicly while privately they have agreements.

[Don]

Actually Ballard, all I'm saying is it's stupid for the right to attack Obama from a lefty point of view. As Maguire pointed out-it was the Dems that freaked out when Obama actually said it-not the Repubs.

Don't forget that you're supposed to be the tough on terror guys.

And now McCain's out there saying "we have to get permission". No wonder you hate the guy.

[Don]

"He wants a more aggressive military action in Pakistan."

You're going to run a Republican campaign for President by promising less agressive military action!!!!!

Damn. Obama really does mean change.

[SteveMG]

And now McCain's out there saying "we have to get permission". No wonder you hate the guy.

He doesn't mean it either.

If he thinks we need to attack al-Qaeda in Pakistan without causing greater problems and without getting "official" approval, he'll do it.

Musharraf will publicly criticize an attack while privately applaud it.

[SteveMG]

You're going to run a Republican campaign for President by promising less agressive military action!!!!!

In Pakistan? Yes!!!!

Geezus, they've got nuclear weapons.

No sane person is going to advocate large scale attacks in Pakistan with the risk of the overthrow of Musharraf leading to Islamists control of his nuclear weapons.

Anyway, Obama isn't going to do squat in Pakistan. This was all a line in an attempt to appear tough.

It's smoke.

[Don]

"If he thinks we need to attack al-Qaeda without getting "official" approval, he'll do it"

Got it.

Obama says he'll do it, but won't.
Mccain says he won't do it, but he will.

Awesome!

[Don]

Ok-just looked at Memeorandum. Pretty universal that this was stupid a tack for McCain. So my work here is done.

Back to your regularly scheduled lunacy.

[MayBee]

You're going to run a Republican campaign for President by promising less agressive military action

And Obama? He's going to win a Democratic campaign by promising more aggressive military action against an ally's wishes? Using anything but bombs, that is.
Simultaneously he's promising less agressive military action against our ally Iraq's wishes?
Does that about sum it up, Don?

[MayBee]

So my work here is done.

Wow. So that's what it's like to be touched by the Obama changeyness. Refreshing.

[SteveMG]

And, in fact, Obama was merely saying that he supported current U.S. policy.

If Obama was supporting current US policy, why did he specifically criticize it?

He claimed that it was insufficient.

That's not supporting the policy; that's opposing it.

[Bill in AZ]

Are you done dragging goalposts around yet? Gotta be tiring. Official US policy... wait, just policy... wait, "Bush said" (maybe) is good enough...

Official US policy is that Pakistan is and has been an ally and we mutually support each other in the fight against terrorism. I would not want to be Musharraf.

As part of that mutual ally relationship, perhaps Bush loaned Musharraf a drone so he could take out some mutual unwanteds - and we continue to hope that Adam Ameriki is being chased by 72 Helen Thomas lookalikes.

You don't know the details, we don't know the details, because none of us are in the middle of what goes on between allies during a war. It doesn't make it Official US Policy that you keep droning on about.

The difference is that Obama sounded like he would make it Official US Policy to bomb Pakistan. That probably would not make some of our allies happy over there - but since he seems to want to out-Clinton Clinton, it would certainly give him a leg up on Clinton's MUCA (Missle up Camels A$$) "policy", which won us a lot of friends and influenced many allies over there.

[SteveMG]

Obama says that in order to win the war against al-Qaeda, we must leave Iraq and take more aggressive action (change the battlefield, he says) again them in Pakistan.

But folks say this is the same position as the Bush Administration? Vis-a-vis Pakistan?

What?

[Sara]

Don, you've signed up to join our brave troops in those Pakistani mountains, I presume? You have been briefed with the utmost confidential, eyes only, secret intel, right? You would follow your messiah of change to the gates of Hell, right?

[qrstuv]

Don, until you put down the Kool-Aid, very little here would make any sense to you.

I hope your anger and aggression don't take you over.

[Soylent Red]

Obama says he'll do it, but won't.
Mccain says he won't do it, but he will.

*Sigh*

Knowing who al-Libi was, and the MSM depiction of how he snuffed it simply means a person can effectively search the internet.

Understanding the somewhat more than semantic difference between "clandestine" and "covert", and who can do which with what, means that someone knows what they are talking about.

I will bet any comers $100 that, without coaching, Obamessiah could not articulate what is being, or should be, done WRT to the latter.

I will double-or-nothing Don is only marginally better informed.

[Soylent Red]

You have been briefed with the utmost confidential, eyes only, secret intel, right?

Heh. "Read-on Don".

[Cecil Turner]

I will bet any comers $100 that, without coaching, Obamessiah could not articulate what is being, or should be, done WRT to the latter.

Yep. And he can't avoid the subject, nor expound on it without looking stupid. The Dems absolutely don't want national defense to be the focus of the election. No matter what Matt Yglesias, Joe Klein and Don think about it, this can't help 'em.

[Soylent Red]

I will bet any comers $100 that, without coaching, Obamessiah could not articulate what is being, or should be, done WRT to the latter.

Of course this should read:

I will bet any comers $100 that, without coaching, Obamessiah could articulate what is being, or should be, done WRT to the latter.

My mistake. Bet stands as rewritten.

[Jane]

Don't forget the lunar eclipse tonite. It's abut half done here, and more interesting than Don by a mile.

[bgates]

Time Headlines I'd Like To See -

Obama: "I Support Bush Policy Towards Pakistan"

NYT Page C47 Stories I'd Like To See -
"Blog Commenter 'Don' Stable After Popping Forehead Vessel; Could Make More Than Full Recovery, and Become Sane"

[Bill in AZ]

Don't forget the lunar eclipse tonite. It's about half done here, and more interesting than Don by a mile.

Snowing - yet again - in globally warmed AZ...

[kim]

Bush spoke softly and carried a big stick. Obama bleats loudly and wags a little stick. So did Bill. Now, Hillary? Oh, just a corrupt cop with an easy finger on the taser trigger. McCain? Whatever Lola wants.
==============

[Sweetie]

Don had to retreat with his goal posts all the way to another blog. That's got to impress the French.