Obama is right-on on Pakistan.

[AtomicKitten]

Obama is right-on on Pakistan IMO.

Something that really sticks out in my mind is that the U.S. is renting Pakistan's army to the tune of $100 million dollars a month. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_renting_Pak_army_...

I think Obama has it exactly right. Pakistan can no longer stay on the fence. If they indeed are our ally or at the very least are recognized as pivotal in the War on Tara, combined with the fact that we subside their military (if not flat-out own it), as a U.S. citizen paying taxes, I EXPECT Musharraf to cooperate. With us. Not al Queda.

This is my opinion.

[beastieboy]

1. But why stir up theoretical crap? Like Biden said " don't say it, do it."

If you're president and you have the opportunity to take out OBL, you do it, with or without Musharraf signing on, but why piss him off now?

[Kagemusha]

2. Because Obama's not president?

I hear Musharraf pulled out of some peace council and they're trying to blame it on "US" criticism i.e. Obama.

Obama isn't president yet. What gives?

[AtomicKitten]

3. somebody needs to get serious

Musharraf has turned a blind eye to and given al Queda safe haven in his country.

Not too much to ask to expect a return for the $100 million we pay to "rent" their army monthly.

[CJCRANE]

9. The problem is Bush not Pakistan.

Bushco have no real intention of capturing Bin Laden.

[AtomicKitten]

12. that's absolutely true

But our quest is to find someone to deal with the consequences of his monster mistakes.

[polichick]

40. That's the real problem...

The Bush-Saud alliance comes before the US ~ can't believe people have been fooled about this!

[durrrty libby]

11. Exactly. He stirs up shit and he has no power to act on anything

This was a huge mistake and proves how inexperienced and naive he is.

[AtomicKitten]

14. it's a debate for the Office of the Presidency

... not "stirring up shit." If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. The debate is to find the best person to deal with this pile 'o sh*t America has been reduced to.

[durrrty libby]

20. It is not just a debate when his words caused real and negative reaction

from Pakistan

He shouldn't be in the kitchen, because he doesn't know how to work the stove,

without almost burning down the house.

[AtomicKitten]

21. He showed his mettle.

I don't agree with your assessment.

But that's okay. Cheers.

[durrrty libby]

24. Showing mettle = tough guy talk

I think this country has endured more than a bellyfull of that garbage

[AtomicKitten]

26. If Junior hadn't already hit the hornet's nest with a baseball bat

... I might agree.

[durrrty libby]

27. W didn't shoot the whole wad. There are plenty more nests to wack

But I am confident Obama won't get a chance at home plate.

[shimmergal]

36. No, it didn't sound like "tough guy talk" to me

as much as a reminder that our troops need to be pursuing Al Queda and their Taliban allies, not mucking around with warring religious and tribal militias in Iraq.

Bush dropped the ball on Bin Laden, whether deliberately or because he's just congenitally a fuck-up. I find it heartening when a candidate wants to reverse that disastrous decision and keep his eye on the real terrorists.

[ripple]

37. Musharraf is just looking for excuses

Not to confront the Taliban and al Qaeda. Until the recent statement from a Bush administration official (similar to Obama's statement and probably much more alarming to Musharraf, given that the current administration is actually in a position to act on it), the Bush administration has done nothing but give him a wink and a nod while he allows our enemies to recruit, train, and strengthen in Pakistan.

As Obama has correctly pointed out, our occupation of Iraq has fueled the anti-Americanism in Pakistan. That's been going on long before Musharraf's contrived little temper tantrum.

[beastieboy]

33. If Hillary had said it, the Obama people would be all over her.

Calling her a Neocon or some such bullshit.

[AtomicKitten]

34. I wouldn't.

I respect Hillary. I just don't agree with her on foreign policy, that impression cemented when she endorsed cutting the American people out of the discussion.

IMO Obama hit a home run when he endorsed sunlight.

[Kagemusha]

16. So what, Musharraf's insulted that Bush won't shut Obama up?

You know, like Musharraf does in his country?

My heart bleeds for him. :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

23. It's time to be clear and lead

I am so sick of these goddamn triangulating games - from the Bushie, the Clintons, all of them. There comes a time when the word games have got to stop in order to prevent any further confusion or escalations. The people in these countries have choices to make and it's time their leaders speak clearly to them too. We're all being manipulated for the benefit of the ruling elite and it needs to stop.

[beastieboy]

29. OK so now he shoots his mouth off and there are real consequences that he can do nothing about

Because he is not the president. What good does that do?

[AtomicKitten]

31. he proved he is a force to be reckoned with

he's running for president, doncha know?

[sandnsea]

35. Who lied about "invading"??

Hmmm? You want to talk about who shot their mouth off? That was the incendiary word and it was the Biden and Clinton camps who chose to use it. So maybe you better just back up and face what really happened, if you seriously want to pretend Musharaff is responding to anything to do with the election, which he isn't.

[endarkenment]

4. The war on terra is bullshit.

Start from there and then proceed to a suggestion that we start up another war in asia.

[AtomicKitten]

7. well, that's a great bumper sticker but

it would behoove us to ease up on the cynicism and face the realities of our world. I have no problem with our leaders talking tough and carrying a big stick. Extricating ourselves from this dangerous mess will take some finesse.

[atreides1]

5. And then reality kicks in.

It's not just about the money, it's also about the cultural differences and how they play a major part in any relations that the US has with other country's. Musharraf has to juggle the many players in his government as well as those in the religious community. Then there is his own intelligence agency which has its own agenda, and sometimes it isn't the same as Musharraf's.

Pakistan also knows that the US is likely to turn on it sometime in the future, just like we did to Iraq, so in order to survive Musharraf needs to keep a lot of different groups happy, and if we keep pushing him, he might very well find new friends, like Russia, Iran, and China.

Now there are some who might say that it's no big deal, but when you consider that Iran has access to huge amounts of both oil and natural gas, that the Russians are slowly becoming a player again, and that China almost owns every American, based on our debt. Separately none of those 3 are much of a concern, but together they make a formidable adversary.

Now I read a story here at DU where the Pakistani MPs called for Musharraf to ally the country to Iran, Russia, and China. That could make things really interesting.

[AtomicKitten]

10. As a consumer and a taxpayer,

I can point to $$$ as a legitimate beef. However, the region has had gasoline thrown over it by this administration. The players are lining up against the U.S., understandably but still dangerous to us. I have no problem with a U.S. president taking tough and carrying a big stick.

[closeupready]

49. Pakistan already has a military alliance with China.

A sort of mutual defense treaty, like NATO. India has a similar arrangement with Russia.

[fujiyama]

50. Pakistan is already extremely close to China

They have so-so relations with Iran, but I believe Khan did help Iran with their nuclear program at some point.

The question is, will Russia risk its long term relationship with India to get closer to Pakistan? I'd find that unlikely, though Russia is ALWAYS willing to sell...so you never know. In a similar way, I wonder to what extent will the Chinese support Pakistan? The Chinese have their own long term interests, and will drop them if necessary...But they also would prefer stability...

[FrenchieCat]

6. I agree that not saying anything to get along with those who

probably know where Bin Laden is, is probably the reason that Bin Laden is still on the loose.

To make speaking about Pakistan's lack of cooperation with the United States in reference to Bin Laden's whereabouts a taboo subject is based on old Washington insider speak.

The Bush administration seems to have no qualm in labeling Iran, Venezuela and Cuba as unfriendly governments to our causes.......so I'm not sure why Pakistan is supposed to be this big ally of ours!

Plus, General Mushasha came into office via a military coup....which is why I never understood, other than our fear due to the fact that they are a nuclear nation, the reasons that we have propped up Pakistan as long as we have!
-----------------
Military Coup d'état
Main article: 1999 Pakistani coup d'état
Musharraf became de facto Head of Government (using the title Chief Executive and assuming extensive powers) of Pakistan following a bloodless coup d'état on 12 October 1999. That day, the constitutional Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attempted to dismiss Musharraf and install Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director Khwaja Ziauddin in his place. Musharraf, who was out of the country, boarded a commercial airliner to return to Pakistan. Senior Army Generals refused to accept Musharraf's dismissal, which was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Sharif ordered the Karachi airport closed to prevent the landing of the airliner, which then circled the skies over Karachi. In the coup, the Generals ousted Sharif's administration and took over the airport. The plane landed with allegedly only a few minutes of fuel to spare, and Musharraf assumed control of the government. Sharif was put under house arrest and later exiled. He and other leaders have subsequently been prevented from entering Pakistan. Reportedly, the disagreement between Musharraf and Sharif centered around the Prime Minister's desire to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict with India in the Kashmir region.<10>

The existing President of Pakistan, Rafiq Tarar, remained in office until June 2001. Musharraf formally appointed himself President on June 20, 2001, just days before his scheduled visit to Agra for talks with India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf

[AtomicKitten]

8. our idiot boy-king has expotentially increased arms proliferation

:scared:

[katmondoo]

13. MY first thought on hearing Obama say he would nuke Pakistan

He sounded like Bush in 2000. Looking for a war. May not be true but that was my thought

[AtomicKitten]

15. that's an extrapolation of what he actually said

a lot of that going on ...

[fujiyama]

51. It's like a real bad game of telephone!

Obama wants to apply pressure on Musharraf to cooperate on the war on terror and will authorize troops crossing the border into tribal areas to capture or kill major terrorists if Mushy doesn't cooperate->Obama wants to bomb Pakistan->Obama wants to INVADE Pakistan->Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan!

This is just getting ridiculous.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Could you provide his quote and a link of him saying he'd "nuke Pakistan".......

cause I was not aware that he said this.

Thanks!

[TwilightGardener]

18. He said no nukes--and caught some heat for THAT too--you're making shit up now.

[sandnsea]

19. That's a lie

Why did you say that?

[Adelante]

22. You heard Obama say he'd nuke Pakistan?

My hearing must be going.

[durrrty libby]

25. We do not need any more cowboys and their tough talk

[FrenchieCat]

32. Come on'!

:wtf:

[PurityOfEssence]

28. He didn't say that, but therein lies the problem.

''I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,'' Obama said, with a pause, ''involving civilians.'' Then he quickly added, ''Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.''

Talk about sloppy: it's pretty easy to construe that he would consider using nuclear weapons if there were no civilians around, and if one wanted to skewer him, it would be pretty easy.

This is how people with nasty motives distill this to "he would nuke Pakistan" and that false assumption can get spread around very effectively. Al Gore never said he invented the internet...

My problems with him on this instance are twofold: he was sloppy and cavalier when talking about nuclear weapons and a precarious--and necessary--ally, and his habitual distortion and denial of what he says. He seems to think that what he says is what he says he says, not what people hear him say.

He NEVER said he'd nuke Pakistan, but he did imply that he might if civilians weren't involved. Although he immediately retracted it, this is waaaay dangerous, and his subsequent rewriting of history is disturbing and standard practice for him.

He also referred blithely to the "right battlefield on Afghanistan and Pakistan", yet when speaking yesterday, he kept referring to "the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan" (a place which doesn't exist, by the way), as if distancing himself from territorial violation and simultaneously trying to erase a previous statement by repetition of a less offensive phrase.

For someone who claims to avoid the same old politics, he uses an awful lot of the same kind of word-twisting and political crap that usually holds sway.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Obama proved he can be strong and not insane at the same time.

I am perfectly fine with what he said about not using nukes under any circumstances

[PurityOfEssence]

38. But that's not what he said.

He said he wouldn't use nukes under any circumstances involving civilians. Pause, schmause, that's what he said.

''I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,'' Obama said, with a pause, ''involving civilians.'' Then he quickly added, ''Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.''

"That's not on the table" means it's not a consideration at the moment.

It doesn't matter what one thinks one says or tries to say; what matters is what one says.

By any measure, this was an extremely clumsy exchange about an extremely important issue.

The overall general answer he SEEMS to be trying to convey is what you're saying: that this isn't a circumstance for nuclear weapons and that they haven't been considered here. It's just chilling to hear him so glibly address something so important and it's not just a "gotcha" moment. I know that many Obama supporters are seeing this as just opportunistic twisting of the guy's words--and that IS being done by some--but there's more going on here: he leaves himself open for this by his lack of clarity, and his backpedaling and rephrasing stray waaay into rewriting history rather than "clarifying" what he meant. This is getting to be a recurrent theme and it's a major character issue.

If you think he's said he's swearing off ever using nukes, he's not. If you think he's swearing off using them in an instance of taking out "high-value targets" (e.g. Bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri, etc.) he's sort of saying that, but it's still vague.

You don't play fast-and-loose when dealing with questions of nuclear war. The question was loaded and provocative in the first place; he could have easily handled it by describing it as such.

Remember: a president's words are held to VERY high standards. They should be.

[AtomicKitten]

44. I don't agree with your analysis but respect your thoughtful effort. (nt)

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Very nice. Thanks.

Things'll get much wilder around here in the next few months, and more sentiment like yours is much appreciated.

People are scared, frustrated and angry at the way this country's gone and they're also filled with admiration and hopes for certain individuals. Such a mix of emotions with such high stakes can lead to some extreme unpleasantness, and that's just human nature.

In times like these--and the ones coming--it's often hard to keep all of this in perspective. Then again, a person's character isn't proven by his/her behavior at his/her birthday party, but by behavior during times of adversity.

I've said it over and over, but it's fun to repeat: this would be a great time to read about while curled up by a comfy fire twenty years hence when all has worked out okay; the personal and policy dynamics are fascinating for the tactics involved and it's going to be a very wild and unpredictable next few months. Too bad we're all so swept up with it that we can't just enjoy the show, but that is, after all, the point.

[AtomicKitten]

47. *

>> a person's character isn't proven by his/her behavior at his/her birthday party ... <<

One of my sisters used to get sent to her room during her birthday parties, like clockwork. Now she's a fundie loon. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Cheers!

[ripple]

39. Exaggerate much? n/t

[sandrakae]

41. It sounds to me like the George Bush is coming out in Barack Obama.

We don't need someone throwing around threats. We got that now.

[AtomicKitten]

42. don't marginalize the "strong" .... Obama's also not insane nor incompetent

[zulchzulu]

43. Bingo!

That's what I've been saying... we give Musharaff lots of loot and he either spends it on "whatever" or just assumes he can do whatever he wants...

[AtomicKitten]

45. Bastard could have bought me a little somethin'

instead of wasting our money on coke and whores.

[closeupready]

48. That's the same rhetoric Bush pushed after 9/11.

You're either with us or with the terrorists. Don't buy into it.