Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Refrains From a Formal ‘I’m Sorry’ to Pakistan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 10:14 PM
Original message
Obama Refrains From a Formal ‘I’m Sorry’ to Pakistan
Source: NYT

The White House has decided that President Obama will not offer formal condolences — at least for now — to Pakistan for the deaths of two dozen soldiers in NATO airstrikes last week, overruling State Department officials who argued for such a show of remorse to help salvage America’s relationship with Pakistan, administration officials said.

On Monday, Cameron Munter, the United States ambassador to Pakistan, told a group of White House officials that a formal video statement from Mr. Obama was needed to help prevent the rapidly deteriorating relations between Islamabad and Washington from cratering, administration officials said. The ambassador, speaking by videoconference from Islamabad, said that anger in Pakistan had reached a fever pitch, and that the United States needed to move to defuse it as quickly as possible, the officials recounted.

Defense Department officials balked. While they did not deny some American culpability in the episode, they said expressions of remorse offered by senior department officials and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were enough, at least until the completion of a United States military investigation establishing what went wrong.

Some administration aides also worried that if Mr. Obama were to overrule the military and apologize to Pakistan, such a step could become fodder for his Republican opponents in the presidential campaign, according to several officials who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/middleeast/for-...
Refresh | +9 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. "make no mistake:...
Edited on Wed Nov-30-11 10:50 PM by MannyGoldstein
certainly *I* never have... so why apologize?"

Note to the parody-challenged: the above is not an actual quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. so how many dead in drone attacks? apologies forthcoming for those civilians? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Good point. Many civilian deaths due to drones w/no apology n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. I suspect we don't have the full story of what went on that day. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Absolutely right. Too many are quick to blame NATO. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. >>> '“Right now there are no Pakistan friendlies” at the White House. '
That seemed like a rather important part of the article but it was buried further down.

"The headaches of the relationship have meant that Pakistan has few friends inside the administration. As one former senior United States official who has been briefed on the administration’s recent deliberations put it, “Right now there are no Pakistan friendlies” at the White House."

I'd say the animosity Pakistan feels toward the US is returned in kind. Truly, FU, Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. +1 Precisely n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
6. Why should we apologize when we have evidence
that Pakistan supports the Taliban and has supported Al Q'aeda all these years?

Pakistan is a terrorist state, when one lives by the sword, one dies by the sword. Pakistan needs to stop whining and get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Exactly
who cares if this is the incident over which the government finally loses control and is overthrown by islamic hardliners? who cares if they get their hands on those nukes? they just need to get over it. like we wou;d of course if the situation was reversed. I mean, America has lived by the sword for a very long time and if someone attacks us do we ever overreact?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You're buying into the standard Pakistani nuclear blackmaill
"Give us everything we want or the nukes will fall into the wrong hands." Pakistan has shaken us down for over 2 decades with this threat.

The reality is that the so called Islamic hardliners are on the military/ISI's payroll and the military will never ever give up its nukes. We have to starve the Pakistani military into giving them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. No I'm not
I'm recognising the fact that the country is unstable, and the current government is barely keeping control. That US actions are making the situation worse rather than better. And that Obama's primary concern seems to be getting re-elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. You are sadly mistaken.
No civilian government in Pakistan has ever had any control. The military ALWAYS calls the shots. Thus, civilian governments are always unstable and survive as long as the military would let them.

Pakistan is a failed state, a horrible mistake of the Brits. It will always be a de facto military dictatorship.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
irislake Donating Member (967 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. I give up
If you don't know that the CIA created Al Qaeda and funds Al Qaeda and Taliban by now you have not done your homework. No wonder we are doomed! Your government wants wars. Wants war war war. Geddit?

Probably not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. CIA created Al Q'aeda with the help of
Pakistani ISI. The CIA stopped supporting Al Q'aeda in the late 80's and the ISI took over, to use the terrorist organizations against other targets, particularly India.

Taliban was entirely a creation of Pakistani ISI and the CIA had nothing to do with it except that the Pakistanis kept the CIA from getting alarmed about the Taliban with frequent assurances.

The sole purpose of the Taliban is for Pakistan to control Afghanistan and not let India have any influence there like India had prior to Taliban overthrowing Ahmadshah Masood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
9. How would we react if the situation was reversed? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. I guess he's following the Rick Perry example . . . OOPS!
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. I see "oops" as an admission that an error was made and the person making it wishes they hadn't made
it. At least, in general. I have no clue what Perry means by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
irislake Donating Member (967 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
14. Good.
We need another war. The more the merrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
17. next up on the docket war with Pakistan, but only after or simultaneously with Iran.
after all, we are pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan right?

Got to do something with the troops. Besides, the MIC is really pissed that the gravy train is slowing down. Got to keep them happy! Right?

this is the new reality folks, the permanent war economy. When more that 50% on the dollar goes to the military, how can our economy not be driven by such?

I keep thinking of Winston at the end of 1984 when he is completely broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC