Obama Vows To Hunt Terrorists In Pakistan (dupe please combine)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: CBS/AP

Presidential Hopeful Says He Would Send In U.S. Troops If Musharraf Doesn't Do More

(CBS/AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — 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.


Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers a speech about terrorism, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)


"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech 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 Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/01/politics/main...

[ikojo]

1. Sounds like John Kerry in 2004 who said he

would KILL Osama bin Laden and hunt down and KILL the terrorists.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[sandnsea]

2. Killing terrorists is bad??

Where have I landed now?

[BushOut06]

5. So just go invade any country that we think has terrorists?

Can you imagine the shit that we would start by invading countries that we accuse of harboring terrorists? Hell, just invading Pakistan would open up a whole can of worms that we don't want to mess with. Need I remind you that Pakistan is a nuclear power? Our relationship with them might not be the best right now, but INVADING them isn't going to help anything!

[sandnsea]

8. All the candidates have agreed with Obama

This is a fight without a point. Catch up. This ones over.

[BushOut06]

10. I haven't heard that, but if true, then I fear for this country

I haven't heard any other candidate actually saying they would invade Pakistan. Given Pakistan's current instability, and their possession of nuclear weapons, such a move could prove highly dangerous. The neocons wanted us to believe that terrorists were close to acquiring nuclear weapons before. If we do something like this, then there could very easily be a chance that something like that could happen!

[never cry wolf]

15. the proposed action is NOT an invasion and occupation and war on Pakistan

It is either an air strike or a limited special forces operation targeted against Bin Laden, Al Qaida and/or the Taliban based upon actionable intel that Musharef refuses to act upon... I have no problem with that....

I seem to remember Bill Clinton took unilateral action sending cruise missles into a soverign nation to try to wipe out Bin Laden....

As the old eskimo said in "never cry wolf"... "good idea."

[BushOut06]

26. Sending in troops sounds like an invasion to me

Besides, it makes sense. If you're going to go after Taliban and terrorists in Pakistan, you're not going to accomplish much through airstrikes alone. Either way - whether it's sending in US troops or "merely" bombing the shit out of them, I don't think either action would sit well with a nuclear armed nation.

[robcon]

27. It's an invasion, like Granada and Panama were invasions.

Same story: troops enter a country with or without permission.

[jody]

3. Just one more instance of Obama's ignorance of all things military. n/t

[arewenotdemo]

6. Hey, he used "actionable intelligence" and "high-value terrorist targets"

in the same sentence.

He's got the jargon down cold, at least.

[never cry wolf]

18. Care to expand on that and explain why?

Didn't think so....

Saying so does not make it so...

I suppose the current chickenhawk admin has all knowing prescience of all things military......

[jody]

19. Have a nice day. n/t

[liberalmuse]

4. That's kind of jumping the gun, IMO.

I'm not criticizing, it's just that you'd want all the facts at your disposal before you thought of doing something like that (unlike the Bushies).

[Whereweat]

7. That's too bad ...

he had to come out with such rediculous commentary as that. This statement will haunt him the rest of his campaign.

[Laurab]

9. Actually I think he has the right idea

and, I'm sure, knowing what I know about Obama, that he would, in fact, examine all his options, use diplomacy first, and do all the things a president should do. I don't agree that it shows ignorance of all things military. We should have done SOMETHING with Pakistan long ago.

The key sentence is this, I think: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Everyone (except this administration, possibly), knows that Pakistan gave Bin Laden a safe haven, and may still be doing that. Pakistan has been only helpful enough to keep us from doing anything about their Al Quaeda haven. I don't advocate military force anywhere, for anything, unless it is absolutely necessary, and the only option left.

Obama doesn't make rash decisions, he looks at every angle, gets input from both parties, and makes his decisions. He isn't talking about invading Pakistan, he is talking about taking some kind of action, and it's probably long overdue.

[Wiccan Warrior]

20. Obama is a joke I hope to the Gods he doesn't get in n/t

[Laurab]

31. He's far less of a joke than the other two

"front runners" in my opinion. Have you read his books?

[Wiccan Warrior]

35. No I haven't and I won't either....

the only one I trust is Edwards and Gore and that's it the rest will cave in to the Pubes.

[Laurab]

36. Well, there's an open mind for you

I think sometimes it's a good idea to learn about a person before you form an opinion about them, and you'd learn a whole lot about Obama if you read his books. I think Obama would WORK with the repugs - no matter who is elected they're going to have to, but caving in? I'm not so sure. And if Edwards past is any judge, he'd cave far sooner than Obama would.

Edwards is okay, but now he's basically a professional campaigner who has a whole lot of practice at campaigning. He talks the talk, yes, but it's walking the walk that's important.

Really, I don't mind if he wins, but I also think you're misjudging Obama a great deal. He's genuine, honest, and he thinks things through, listens to ALL points of view before making decisions.

I like Gore, and was hoping he'd jump in, but it's looking less and less like he's going to. I won't mind if Edwards wins, right now I'm leaning Obama, and I hope one or the other pulls ahead of Hillary in the next few months, and stays there.

[BushOut06]

11. PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

I'm not sure if people are forgetting this fact! This isn't like invading Iraq, or even going into Iran. Neither of those countries had nuclear weapons. Pakistan has already proven they have nuclear weapons. Granted, they might not be doing everything they can to help us. But does ANYONE think that actually invading Pakistan is going to help us at all?

[Wiccan Warrior]

21. Knowing us we probably sold them the Nukes n/t

[greenman3610]

12. This is Obama's first huge ***kup.

Just last week, he was called naive.
Now, he makes a proposal that is Bushian in
it naivety.
You don't invade an unstable, nuclear armed
islamic nation.

[fbahrami]

13. I guess as Americans

it's somehow our right to send "troops" anywhere now!

And we wonder why we're hated.

[never cry wolf]

16. Read his entire speech, ok? He is not advocating invading anyone

All he is saying is that if there is actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden et al and/or the Taliban and the US presses Musharef to bust them but Musharef declines, Obama wants to reserve the right to take action to take them out ourself, via air strike or a limited special forces operation....

In NO way is he invading or starting a war against Pakistan, he is sending in a Swat team to get the bad guys if Musharef will not.

[Pericles64]

25. So what you're saying is...

that it should be ok to violate the sovereign territory of any nation, at any time, with bombing, limited troops, or whatever, if you think that some enemy of your country happens to be hiding out in there? So I guess England should be able to carry out airstrikes upon the U.S. because SOME people who supported the IRA are here.. or Israel should be able to conduct strikes here because Hamas and Hezzbolah have supporters (some very active) here?

I got news for ya.. some nation conducts such activities upon our soil.. they HAVE started a war.

[never cry wolf]

30. Do you believe it was ok for the big dog to go after Bin Laden

and violate a sovereign territory in Afghanistan? What did you think of the US going after the Taliban and supposedly Bin Laden after 911? When Al Qaida conducted activities on our shore did they start a war? If so how can we prosecute it if they don't have their own sovereign territory?

Bin Laden is not just some enemy and we know he is in Pakistan. If we were to get solid intel that said that there was an Al Qaida leadership meeting at a specific point in time and location in Pakistan and we inform Musharef of we have this intel and request he act on it and he refuses we should say, "oh well, we asked."

There is precedent for going after rogues or pirates in other sovereign territories, think the Barbary pirates and Pancho Villa.

[Pericles64]

32. Hypocrisy

And following that precedent was what we did when we invaded Iraq. Either the principle is right, or (as Obama voted) it is wrong.

[never cry wolf]

34. And what principle is that?

Obama is against unilateral, unprovoked invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation but is for taking out rogue pirates that have attacked the US and are plotting more and are hiding out in a nation that will not take them action themselves.

No hypocrisy there. Nothing even close to the neocons, try again...

[Peregrine Took]

14. Not that I ever liked him that much but this new found Pakistan "war" option

seals it for me. He's an idiot who is following focus group or PR people mandates.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wiccan Warrior]

22. Totally agree I think the Admin got to him

and threatened him like Pelosi you know that some Dems are being threatened I can smell it.

[TheLastMohican]

23. So ladies and gentlemen

We have a choice between the Republican party (aka Neo-Cons) and Republican Light party (aka Democrats). No matter who comes to power, the invading of foreign countries won't stop. Is this the price for supporting an Empire? Where will they get the boots to back up the fight against the world?

[Pericles64]

24. Say what?!?!?!

This must be, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have ever heard. B. Hussein Obama opposes the invasion of any enemy who is actively supporting terrorists, and instead supports the idea of invading a friend who is simply not doing enough, in Obamas view, to fight terrorists.

Whose friggin side is he on, anyway?

[TheLastMohican]

29. You read me loud and clear

What kind of reaction is US going to get from Pakistani population with this new "overseas adventure". Don't you think it is about time to stop committing people and resources to failed wars with unclear objectives?

Those who hold on to everything will eventually hold nothing.

[robcon]

28. I think this was a simple strategy by Obama.

The polling concerning his "meetings with dictators and thugs" answer in the debate suggested that he had 'weaknesses' among the electorate on national defense among the candidates.

This speech was to leapfrog other candidates so he would be considered 'strong' on national defense.

It was only a simple campaign ploy - but the announcement was also a stupid strategy for anyone who would be president. Obama's not ready to be president.

[Baclava]

33. He's just trying to squeeze to the right of Hillary...it's all about '08.

First shots in the salvo to secure the "National Defense" vote.

However, when you open your mouth...shots get fired back...


Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning

Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

Obama warned Wednesday that if he is elected president, he would order US forces to hit extremist targets on Pakistan's frontier with Afghanistan if embattled military ruler President Pervez Musharraf failed to act.

"Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance," Pakistan's Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. "They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070802/wl_sthasia_afp/usv...