Hillary Clinton and John Edwards AGREE with Barack Obama's assessments on Pakistan

[zulchzulu]

Some fans of Clinton and Edwards wanted to jump the shark on what Obama said today by attacking him for being a "warmonger" or whatever.

However, Clinton and Edwards AGREE with Obama.

Clinton:

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said."

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/wor...

Edwards:

"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/30083...

And there are others who support Obama, like Richard Clarke:

I believe his speech is a comprehensive, sophisticated approach to terrorism. I was glad to see it recognized the importance of stopping repressive police and intelligence activities in countries threatened by al-Qaeda and terrorism. I'm also glad to see him say clearly that we are not at war with Islam but must partner with Muslims threatened by al-Qaeda. On Pakistan, I think it must be true anywhere that if we know of high value targets and the host government will not act, we have to do so.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/01/wei...

Note: I wanted to consolidate other threads for each candidate and combine their thoughts together.

[goclark]

1. Yes! Yes! Yes! K and R

[MADem]

2. Well, who wouldn't? If Pervez couldn't get it done, we'd need to.

I mean, really. Porgie should have been leaning all along, instead of tossing billions at Pervez and leaving him to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

[TeamJordan23]

10. Exactly, Obama never said he was gonna go to Pakistan and bring them democracy. As some construed.

[ruggerson]

3. That's a bit of a stretch

n/t

[Tellurian]

8. Right! Hillary does not believe in unilateral action in Pakistan..

Hard to believe cherrypicked quotes in the OP have the same meaning as this entire article:

WASHINGTON, July 26: 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.

Ms Clinton said that in January she visited Pakistan and discussed the US-led war against terrorism with President Gen Pervez Musharraf. She said she agreed with the Pakistani leader that the two countries needed to work together to defeat extremists because this war could not be won without such cooperation.

She also emphasised the need for combining military tactics with an economic strategy to address the root causes that bred extremist ideologies.

Ms Clinton said Pakistan not only faced a threat from Al Qaeda and Taliban elements hiding in the tribal territory, but also from extremists living inside the country. To defeat terrorism, she said, it was as important to win the battle for hearts and minds as to win military battles.

Talking about issues confronting the Islamic world, Ms Clinton recalled that when her husband was the president he had invited the leaders of the Middle East to the Camp David presidential resort to forge a peace deal.

The meeting did not produce positive results but later the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat called Mr Clinton to tell him that he was willing to accept all the proposals discussed at Camp David.

�By then, it was too late and Mr Clinton�s term was already coming to an end,� she said.

Ms Clinton said the Pakistani-American community was one of the most successful and talented communities in the US and many of them had achieved their �American dreams� of prosperity.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/27/top8.htm

[zulchzulu]

9. Clinton's statement in the OP is from TODAY

Are you saying that she's a flip-flopper?

[Tellurian]

14. Jay Leno just said, Obama gave a speech today with a rolled up sock in his pants !

Go on another cherry-picking expedition. Keep those fingers occupied..

[zulchzulu]

15. Do you want Leno quotes about the Clintons?

It would crash the DU server.

[Tellurian]

18. It was a just a joke..

I'm sure if it's about the Clintons you'll have your game face on...Whats good for them is good for Obama!

[zulchzulu]

28. Oh...

Next time... oh, whatever.

[never cry wolf]

4. Thank you

The Obama bashers on DU are ridiculous... All things being equal I'd have Dennis in the WH, but realistically he has no chance... Obama is the next most liberal and has a chance...

[tkmorris]

5. What can I say? You're right

It was predictable that certain supporters of other candidates would pile on Obama after his remarks, but it's still disappointing. What on earth happened to good old fashioned objectivity? There is nothing objectionable in what Obama said, except to those few who sincerely believe we should NOT pursue actual terrorists (as opposed to declaring politically convenient wars against nations with nothing to do with terrorists). All in all I thought the speech was a very good one, and I say that as a non-Obama supporter.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. It was a strong and hopeful speech. It really makes you want obama as prez.

[maximusveritas]

7. The only candidate with a legit disagreement is Kucinich

The others either agree or are just desperate to criticize Obama, even if they have to resort to ridiculous hypocritical arguments. Kucinich at least has a clear difference of opinion with Obama.

[jsamuel]

11. Or how about they disagree with their own candidate?

Not everything is about the presidential race. Some of us disagree with the policy, irrespective of who advocates for it.

[jsamuel]

16. One difference I see, but it is hard to tell

A huge part of the problem was how Obama said it.

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

JRE said

"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."


I know it may seem small, but it makes all the difference. Obama says he will defy the president of Pakistan if he defies us while Edwards says he will do it if the president is unable to.

I wish JRE was more explicative with this statement because I may be reading his statement wrong. But if Obama had said what Edwards said, this media storm may not have happened.

[zulchzulu]

13. Kucinich doesn't offer any realistic solution to the problem at hand

He went on about how terrorism starts from being disenfrancised economically and politically.

Well, thanks Captain Obvious!

In the meantime, what the hell are we supposed to do? Act like nothing is happening?

The argument Kucinich made is like someone who claims that criminals often have a bad family structure and it's not their fault that they are poor and angry. Meanwhile, the person they murdered is dead...

Should we take comfort in someone who gives answers that sound like fortune cookies and don't offer anything realistic as a solution.

[Like It Is]

12. They are all wrong ! You don't announce that you're going to do it.

When the time comes you just do it. They are just making things hard for Musharraf. Diplomats they are not. They need to study Foreign Relations 101. Biden already has.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Exactly. Richardson, Biden, and Dodd get it on this one. BO just made the fundies stronger

The others are wrong too but they did not go out there and do something that just strengthened the hands of the fundies in Pakistan at this critical juncture for that nation.

[BeyondGeography]

17. What a Wednesday it was for the Obama bashers

they ran roughshod over the naive and irresponsible warmonger, only to find, by day's end, that their dearly beloved candidates essentialy agree with Obama on the question of unilaterally pursuing terrorists in Pakistan if need be. I speak here of Clinton and Edwards, as Dodd and Biden have offered a different point of view, though, in the case of Biden at least, the differences are not substantial. Of course, Clinton and Edwards only coughed up these admissions because the naive and irresponsible warmonger stuck his neck out, took a risk, and played some serious offense.

I believe we have an interesting campaign on our hands, folks.

[Colobo]

19. It's beautiful to see Clinton and Edwards silencing Obama bashers :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Perhaps the BO fans who call other candidates "warmongers", "neocons", etc. were also silenced today

[Dawgs]

26. Why?

Is Obama advocating war? NO!!
Is Obama acting like a neocon? NO!! (Bush wouldn't do it, and McCain is against this idea)

Where the BO fans silenced today? NO, we were validated.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. You don't get it

BO fans, continue calling other candidates the very things you guys screamed bloody murder about when your candidate was called them.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. You guys missed the irony of all that

You guys didn't like it when your candidate was called a "warmonger", "neocon", "Bush-lite", etc.

Richardson also--correctly--disagreed. The difference between Biden and Obama is huge in terms of international relations.

[ellacott]

23. Biden said his only disagreement was the he announced it n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Which is a HUGE difference in foreign affairs nt

[Ethelk2044]

24. Obama did not push for us to fight the wrong war.

Biden stated on MSNBC yesterday he Agreed with Obama's four points.

[robcon]

25. Obama was stupid, IMO.

Announcing that U.S. troops were going to enter Pakistan, with or without permission from their government, is an act of war. Our enemies in Pakistan must be celebrating: Obama gave them a rich recruiting tool, but he can't possibly do anything about it until January 20, 2008 at the earliest, while they can make hay now.

You can't get any stupider in international diplomacy than that.

[sendero]

27. Sure you can..

... you can invade a country that we had no real interest in. In case you have forgotten, we are still there.

Obama is merely drawing a sharp contrast between Bush, who will take actions that are costly and accomplish nothing, and himself, who might be willing to actually fight the "war on terror".

Obama is right. And FUCK Pakistan and FUCK Saudi Arabia, both countries are working against our interests and our fearless leader won't do anything because he is beholden to both of them.

[MiserableFailure]

31. exactly

those two countries are no good for us