I want Obama to explain the US killing people in Pakistan

[bos1]

He's my prez and what he's done in terms of Guitmo and torture is great. But I would like him to tell the American people why we are continuing the Bush admin's policy of sending missiles into Pakistan to kill people.

Who is being killed? Why? How is it done? How are targets determined? What is the goal? How long will it go on? etc. etc.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/pakistan.missile/index.html">Two U.S. missile strikes kill 17 in Pakistan, sources say
[br /> * Story Highlights
* NEW: Pakistan military's top spokesman calls attacks "counterproductive"
* NEW: Ex-Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf says public against such attacks
* Strikes would be the first since President Obama took office
* Attacks occur in Pakistan's ungoverned tribal region along Afghan border]

[cali]

1. He's explained it repeatedly

I don't agree with it, but he's been clear about this direction throughout his run for the presidency.

[bos1]

4. Please link to his explanations, thx n/t

[MadBadger]

6. Did you follow the campaign?

He said repeatedly that if we had actionable intelligence of Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, we would take action if Pakistan would not. He got a lot of flak for that position in the primaries.

[bos1]

22. He's president now and should re-introduce the policy to national debate

because pre-emptive strikes are wrong.

[MadBadger]

37. Its not a pre-emptive strike if they attacked you first.

[bigtree]

85. I'm not convinced these 'targets' actually 'attacked us first'

. . . as the military is associating them with resistance to their Afghanistan occupation. The reports say the targets were 'tribal leaders'. It's not clear what these attacks were actually 'defending' against, if that's someone's claim.

[11 Bravo]

88. You're not convinced?

Unless the NSA came to your breakfast table and filled you in, I'll rely on the judgement of the guy who knows what's going on.

[bigtree]

90. It's really not clear who ordered these strikes. You can only provide the military report

. . . which is in dispute. The locals say that NONE of the dead are 'militant'.

No one in the Obama administration has said that the President ordered these strikes. I suspect they were directed by NATO in conjunction with whatever structure there is in place at the CIA where these drones are directed from.

Whatever the line of command, it's clear that there is a dispute as to who the targets and those killed actually were. Both governments have said they'll investigate, but the U.S. has NO credibility in this type of attack across Pakistan's borders.

Earlier on in the past administration, we witnessed a brutal attack on a village in Pakistan by U.S. airstrikes which killed as many as 18 residents there as Bush claimed to have 'intelligence' that bin-Laden's deputy was having dinner in one of the homes bombed. The attacks were carried out by predator drones.

"As many as eighteen persons have been killed and six fatally injured due to bombardment by the allied aircraft from Afghanistan."

The bombardment by the Allied forces, fell on Damadola Burkanday area of tehsil Mamoon in Bajaur agency at 3:00 am PST, completely flattening the homes of BakhtPur, Muhammad Rahim and Bacha Khan.

According to local eyewitnesses, fourteen members of BakhtPur family along with four others died, due to indiscriminate bombing. The dead included eight children, and four females. The dead included, 9-year old Nadia Bibi, 10-year old Sadiqa, 9-year old Tayyeb, 7 year old Zahid ullah, 5-year old Hussain Nawaz. Others included 20-year-old Ameer Muhammad, 25-year-old Nazir Muhammad, 50-year Noor Pari, 40-year old Shahi Badan, 30-year-old Qari Saeed, 30-year-old Tahira Bibi, and others. Some of the dead were unidentified.

The locals reported that the allied warplanes violated the Pakistani airspace from Afghanistan territory by 19 kilometers and targeted the said homes. The resultant explosions rocked the area far and wide, shattering windows. The Bajur attack happened few days after Pakistan lodged protest with U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan about firing in the North Waziristan tribal area on Saturday night that had killed eight people.

The attacks were directed by the CIA, or some shadowy branch of Rumsfeld's secret military. The Pentagon, however, immediately denied knowledge of airstrikes. No accountability, no fingerprints, just a mindless drone.

According to John Lumpkin, "CIA Sent Drone to Save Rebel Leader," Associated Press :

"On February 4, 2002, a Predator Hellfire missile killed three Afghans scavenging for metal in the hills around Zhawar Kili, Paktia. On May 6,, 2002, a Predator fired a Lockheed missile at a convoy of cars in Kunar province, seeking to assassinate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but succeeded only in destroying a madrassah and killing at least 10 nearby civilians. On October 26,, 2001, the CIA sent a missile-armed Predator drone from Pakistan to protect Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq, who at the time was being tracked by the Taliban. That mission failed."

In Iraq, the military calls the ones they kill "insurgent' until it's proven otherwise. In their attacks across Pakistan's sovereign borders, they call those they kill, 'militant'. The residents in the region call it murder.


Report: U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan caused at least 680 civilian deaths in 2008
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4888963

[cali]

7. I'm sorry, but you're just as capable as I am, I presume, of doing

a google search. In any case, Obama said over and over again, that he was determined to fight the Taliban. That's the gist of it- along with increasing troops in Afghanistan, he made clear that he'd go after the Taliban in Pakistan.

[bos1]

33. White House refuses to comment on strikes

And that's not the transparency and openness I expect

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=19837

< WASHINGTON: The White House on Friday refused to comment on reports that suspected US drones had fired missiles into presumed militant dens in the tribal belt. “As you know I am not going to comment on those matters,” spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters despite being repeatedly pressed to discuss the reports. The strikes, which pulverised two houses in the northwest tribal belt, were reportedly the first since US President Barack Obama took office and one day after he appointed a brand new special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.>

[PurityOfEssence]

76. Ah, it's only the violation of a sovereign nation; how Cheneyan to not comment...

Not good.

[democracy1st]

16. darn man give him some time!

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. He said this before he became the nominee:

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

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

more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

[bos1]

49. thank you for the link.

I read it. But now I think the public deserves more info -- a complete briefing on the hows and whys of this.

[PurityOfEssence]

75. NO, he said he'd do it if Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't

That presupposes that they're to be consulted beforehand if not that actual requests are to be made. Were they? If not, then this is unilateralism. It doesn't matter that Junior did this, he's not the standard of decent behavior in any world I want to inhabit.

Do you have any lines from him that don't have a component of necessity due to the lack of Pakistani action? What he's offered doesn't suffice in absence of actual foot-dragging on the part of the Pakistanis, unless he's DEFINED them as obstructionist by nature. If so, then they're no ally, and if we treat them as such, they'll become even more estranged.

This is mighty fast work, and if he doesn't understand that WAR is IMPORTANT, then we need to gently remind him of this, because the rest of the world won't be so kind.

[Balbus]

91. So he's okay with killing children in order to hopefully kill a few Mosleem bad guys?

I knew I should've paid attention to the debates a little more closely. My bad.

[MadBadger]

2. The Who and the Why are pretty self-explanatory.

The how targets are determined will not be answered.

[FrenchieCat]

3. You thought that you would be enjoying world peace

simply because Obama's been in office less than a week?

How naive is that?

All I wanted was a pony!

[bos1]

5. thanks for the sneer and the childishness. n/t

[rug]

9. Keep your pony, Frenchie. I'll settle for less corpses.

[rug]

8. There is no good explanation for violating sovereignty and continuing preemptive killing.

It doesn't matter how many times he says it.

[cali]

10. I'm not sure that he's violating sovereignity

This may well be done with the acquiesence of the Pakistani government. Agree on the preemptive strikes.

[tekisui]

27. Pakistan has expressed great concern over US drone attacks

ISLAMABAD, Jan 24 (APP): Pakistan has expressed great concern over US drone attacks on Friday in Waziristan area causing civilian casualties. A statement from the foreign office said that these concerns have been conveyed to the US side.

“Pakistan has consistently lodged strong protest with the US Government against drone attacks, which constitute infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty,” says the statement.

With the advent of the new US administration it is Pakistan’s sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach towards dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism.

“We maintain that these attacks are counter‑productive and should be discontinued. Pakistan urges the USA and NATO to adopt a holistic and more effective approach to countering extremism and terrorism,” the statement added.

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65998&Itemid=1

[hack89]

62. And we know that governments never say one thing publicly

and do another secretly. I don't know what Pakistan really thinks, but they certainly have some good reasons to help the US defeat the Taliban.

[bos1]

21. That's my view too. And if Obama is going to engage in this,

I think he should re-introduce it to the American people for the national debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. The President has a good explanation:

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

more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

It would appear that the President is applying this policy to Musharraf's successor.

[MadBadger]

38. How exactly is this preemptive killing?

[bos1]

44. How is it not?

unless these are fighters travelling from Iraq to Palistan. Otherwise, it seems to be preemptive strikes against AQ and Taliban people -- but all that remains unclear to the American public

And that's the point in my first post -- who exactly is the US killing by drone plane, why, due to what intelligence, etc?

[MadBadger]

46. Are you kidding me? We've been fighting AQ and the Taliban for 7 years now.

And If i remember correctly, it was AQ who made the initial pre-emptive strike...remember that?

[bos1]

52. calm down. As I said, does the US have the right to bomb any country where supposed AQ are?

Furthermore, does the US have the right to kill anyone they label "Al Queda" ? And how is this determined? By whom? What makes the intelligence "actionable"?

The US public has a right to know these things.

[Pavulon]

56. You want NSA signal intercepts?

Video from KH11 or whatever superseded it? What do you want to see? We have the ABILITY to kill people where we choose. That can be with a guided weapon or a woman walking up behind someone pumping money to these guys and shooting him in the head.

These are not "rights" these are decisions made and cleared at very high levels.

[Duende azul]

72. 7 years of illegal war.

And could you please elaborate on how AQ made that supposed preemptive strike?

[MadBadger]

73. Unless you're wearing a tin foil hat, you know what im talking about

[bos1]

84. You're just another warmonger, aren't you? How's your Halliburton stock doing?

[MadBadger]

92. I'll wait till you calm down and stop the ridiculous personal attacks.

[bos1]

93. you mean like "Because you're a fucking intelligent expert" kind of personal attacks?

g.a.l.

[1776Forever]

11. Huffington Post Missile Strikes On Pakistan Since Obama Presidency Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/first-missile-strikes-on_n_160458.html

First Missile Strikes On Pakistan Since Obama Presidency: Reports
Huffington Post/GroundReport | Katharine Zaleski, Hanna Ingber Win | January 23, 2009 04:12 PM

The CIA's bombing campaign against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan continued with two more attacks today, an indication, senior officials say, that President Barack Obama has approved the U.S. strategy that has killed at least eight of al Qaeda's top 20 leaders since July 2008.

The two attacks today in Pakistan's were the first since President Obama took office on Tuesday.

(snip)

A piece in Vanity Fair predicts that the strikes and Obama's "hawkish" stance on Afghanistan will bring the president into conflict with the anti-war left.

With Pakistan Airstrikes, Obama Draws First Blood
by Bill Bradley
January 23, 2009, 5:45 PM

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/01/barack-obama-made-swift-movements.html

Obama can't be expected to pander to liberals for the next four years. But the decision to double down in Afghanistan carries considerable risk. Like the economy, it is a huge problem. But even the economy can be expected to bounce back sometime in the next few years. If Afghanistan turns into Obama's Iraq, he may miss the support of the anti-war left, which, it's worth remembering, helped propel him past Hillary Clinton not so very long ago.

..........

I would like to hear more on this also. With the people he chose in his cabinet and our new Secretary of State I am not surprised by it but I withhold my comment on it until that time. It does seem to be odd that we can condemn Isreal for the same tactics as these with the Palestinians though. Why not get the Pakistani's to go with us house by house and find the terrorists - or if they refuse cut their money off?

[cali]

12. This is Obama's policy. Period. He made it perfectly clear

it would be his policy, long before he was nominated and elected. It has exactly zero to do with his cabinet.

[1776Forever]

14. I agree it is "his" policy but I do think the cabinet he chose goes right along with it.

There are no "dissenters" in the bunch. Do you know of one? I don't know if I agree with this or not but I don't think it is unreasonable to question the tactics. Kerry had some good points about this I thought when he ran for President if you remember. He discussed them again last year:

Why Pakistan Matters: Kerry Speaks on Elections Experience

February 29, 2008

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/kerry_pakistan.html

“What happens in Pakistan doesn’t just stay in Pakistan,” Senator John Kerry argued at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event today about the implications of the Pakistan elections for U.S. national security. The Senator recently returned from a trip to South Asia, where he monitored Pakistan’s elections.

“Despite remarkable violence in the run up to the election…people turned out in remarkable numbers,” showing the commitment of the Pakistani people to democracy and stability in their government, said Kerry. While the elections were not perfect, they met the “threshold of credibility.” In light of the results, the United States must evaluate its commitments to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He argued that Pakistan and Afghanistan were the real central front in fighting extremism.

The United States needs more than a military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it must move beyond a Karzai policy or a Musharraf policy. U.S. aid to Pakistan must focus on more than military support, such as strengthening governance in Pakistan. “Elections alone are not a cure all, nor do they make a functioning democracy,” said Kerry, but they are an important first step. Senator Kerry proposed tripling non-military assistance from $500 million to $1.5 billion.

But money alone will not solve the problem. The United States also needs to engage in an active discussion about counterterrorism efforts with the new government of Pakistan. Senator Kerry expressed concerns that these new leaders in Pakistan may define the threat differently than the United States, seeing the Taliban as a greater threat than the Al Qaeda network. These differing perceptions could either help or harm American national security. As a nation, Kerry said, “we need a stable Pakistan as a long-term ally,” particularly if we want to strengthen security on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

A long-term strategy toward Pakistan also needs to include Afghanistan, which has not been sufficiently prioritized by the administration. The challenge in Afghanistan is largely a nation-building challenge, and the United States needs to expand training for the Afghan National Police, increase reconstruction and development assistance, contingent on good governance. The United States should also create a civilian reserve corps in the U.S. government to more effectively respond. Furthermore, the mission in Afghanistan needs a comprehensive plan to address the poppy problem and issues of corruption; and one person should be in charge of the international community’s disparate actions.

“It’s in our long-term security interest,” said Kerry, to strengthen both Pakistan and Afghanistan and support efforts to create stable states. U.S. national security requires a comprehensive regional approach, and Pakistan must remain a key focus of U.S. efforts against Al Qaeda and terrorism worldwide.

[Occam Bandage]

28. I suppose it is true that neither his Secretary of State nor his Secretary of Defense

is opposed to his foreign policy. I cannot really think of a modern President that decided to appoint people who opposed his foreign policy to either position.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. He said he'd do it if Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't

Were they requested to act?

I'm staying out of the question of whether it's him or the cabinet, and you are correct: he said many months ago that he'd pursue into Pakistan, but he said he'd do it if we had certain evidence and Pakistan couldn't or wouldn't get 'em. Were they notified? Were they requested to hit this target themselves? If not, is it because it was immediate intelligence upon which we had to act immediately, or is it that we simply don't trust the Pakistanis enough to even consult them.

If the latter is the case here, then the very soul of his statement meant to mitigate our violation of sovereignty is rendered nothing short of bullshit: the whole concept of the hypothetical scenario was premised upon PAKISTAN'S INABILITY OR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACT. Is this the case? Were they consulted?

Considering how Pakistan is requesting us to stop the attacks, it sure as fuck doesn't sound like they were consulted.

[K Gardner]

13. What Absolute BULLCRAP !! You've linked to the SAME one story six times, using a different

made-up headline, making it look (to those who don't take the time to follow the damned links) that there have been multiple attacks in the TRIBAL REGION WHERE it clearly says they're after Al-Qaeda ! If you'd even bothered to READ the SHORT article you linked SIX times, you would have found the answers to every single question you asked. So what really was the point of this post with its "I WANT OBAMA TO EXPLAIN" Outrage Headline and Faked Duplicate Links??

This is the kind of shit that REALLY pisses me off. If you have a legitimate question about why the U.S. is targeting the TALIBAN in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan, then ask THAT in an intelligent and reasoned way - promote a discussion which would enlighten the DU Community instead of using an inflammatory, demanding, Obama-slamming headline.

From the ARTICLE:

The region has seen a sharp spike in the number of aerial attacks by unmanned drones on what are believed to be Taliban targets. The United States has the only military with drones operating in the area.

In 2008, there were 30 suspected U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan, based on a CNN count.


On New Year's Day, two top al Qaeda terrorists were killed by a U.S. missile strike against a building in northern Pakistan, according to two senior U.S. officials.

The men, both Kenyans, were on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list, one of the officials said, and were believed to have been responsible for the September suicide bombing at an Islamabad hotel.

[bos1]

20. no idea what you are talking about

in terms of six times or whatever. Cut down on the coffee

[Life Long Dem]

15. Maybe al-queda shouldn't bring their war home to family and friends?

This makes them accomplishes to terrorist acts.

[kstewart33]

17. He said he'd do it and he did it. No explanation needed . eom

[Zynx]

18. When a country has poor control over affairs in its own borders, this is legitimate.

Pakistan has extremely poor internal control. If we could rely on them to actually try to crack down on extremists that would be one thing, but they have proven to be an extremely incapable ally.

[MilesColtrane]

81. Incapable ally is putting it mildly.

Pakistan's military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have been working with, and training Al Quaeda for years.

Cheney ordered a no fly zone from Konduz to Pakistan in 2001 after Delta Force had thousands of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Afghan sympathizers trapped. He apparently made the order because there were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers there, including two generals, who had been assisting and training Al Qaeda members.

The capture of Pakistan military by U.S. forces would have put tremendous pressure on Musharraf, maybe even resulting in his overthrow if it was allowed to happen, so Cheney authorized their escape.

Links to that story:

(The Konduz story begins about 1/3 of the way down this page.)

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airlift_of_Evil


President Zardari remains in power at the pleasure of the Pakistan military, and they (and the ISI) are working with Al Qaeda, so there's really nothing he can do. It's up to the U.S. to police that area.

[stray cat]

19. clearly not because he views the world as a video game where he kills people at will

because everyone loves one another and there is no danger of anything but peace and goodwill from all to all

[Occam Bandage]

23. Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that he would strike AQ or Taliban targets

in the ungoverned border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, if he had solid intelligence tracing them there.

[bos1]

29. yes you are right but now he has done it and it's up for grabs

in terms of how we all are to react to it. I hope a reporter asks him soon about the policy of preemptive strikes and whether it is the wrong thing to do.

[Occam Bandage]

32. I don't understand the word "preemptive" there.

We have been engaging the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for seven years, most of that wasted by Bush's utter neglect of the Afghan people. What is "preemptive" about following targets that are a continuous and very real military threat to American forces? I mean, not to equate World War Two with the War on Terror in any real way, but that's kind of like calling the daylight bombing raids on Berlin "preemptive strikes."

A reporter could well ask him whether his policy of striking Taliban targets in the lawless Afghan-Pakistani border regions is the wrong thing to do. I'm sure many have. After all, it's been a major (and often criticized, by both McCain and Clinton) part of his foreign policy since he started running.

And yeah, we can react to it however we please. I think it's the right thing to do. You don't. And here we are.

[bos1]

39. This isn't in Afghanistan and the question is

what determines the death penalty by drone bomber without trial for these people in Pakistan? Are they fighters who were tracked from Afghanistan?

As you know, "preemptive" was Bush's word for the attack on Iraq. It would seem that these strikes in Pakistan often fall under the same category.

[MadBadger]

40. Iraq never attacked us, but Al-Qaeda sure did.

[bos1]

41. That doesn't give the US the right to bomb any country where a supposed AQ person is.

[MadBadger]

43. If we have actionable intelligence of a target, and Pakistan wont do anything,..go for it.

These people attacked and killed 3,000 of our citizens. Pakistan wont do anything about it. They can just sit their and lounge in the sun

[bos1]

45. "actionable intelligence of a target" = vague words for killing unknown people.

I just think the public deserves more info and explanation.

[MadBadger]

48. Because you're a fucking intelligent expert..

[bos1]

53. Time for you to take your chill pills. Bye

[Pavulon]

50. Look at FOIA info from the last decade or so.

we kill people we want dead. How complicated is this? What explanation covers this> Taliban guys flee to pakistan, we watch them with KH11 and other imagery systems. We get tips. When they end up somewhere we can blow them up we do.

End of story.

[Pavulon]

47. Right has nothing to do with it. US policy for decades

has and will continue to use killing as a method to deal with problems. We can ask them really nice to stop attacking us and blowing up embassies, navy ships, and other stuff we dont want blown up.

We are not bombing pakistan.

We can and will continue this policy during and after the current administration. Then in 30 years you can see the foia paper to see what we really did.

[Occam Bandage]

61. It is indeed the fight in Afghanistan. Wars involving non-governmental entities

often don't neatly match up with borders. If Pakistan does not feel like controlling its border territories, then Pakistan forfeits the right to protest America launching strikes into that border territory.

Again, you haven't explained how these attacks are "preemptive." You've just said, "well, they're preemptive like Iraq." A preemptive attack by America is an attack on an organization that has not yet attacked the United States, to deny it the ability to do so in the future. Iraq hadn't attacked us yet. These attacks are part of a seven-year-old war. That's not remotely preemptive.

[treestar]

24. Because Bush started all of it?

It can't just be dismantled immediately.

[bos1]

25. this I don't agree with. Like the trials in Guito or torture, technically he could just stop it

[Occam Bandage]

30. He could, but he believes that Afghanistan is critical, and has since 2001. nt

[treestar]

31. gitmo won't be closed for a year - the order just started it

This can be even harder to manage.

Besides, Obama was for the Afghanistan part of the war.

Better to ask why operations in Iraq have not immediately stopped - that's the war Obama said he would "end responsibly."

[MadBadger]

42. Because it is irresponsbile to immediately stop operations in Iraq?

[treestar]

58. Yes. So it would on the Afghan war. Which is what the OP

demands for Afghanistan, which Obama said we would continue, but not for Iraq, which he said would end. But the demand is unreasonable either way.

[bos1]

59. wrong, I did not say to immediately end the Afghan. war. I said why are we killing in Pakistan

[treestar]

60. That's pretty much part of the Afghan war. Al Qaeda retreated

from Afghanistan and is thought to be hiding out in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Of which Pakistan does not have control. The fight isn't really against Afghanistan or Pakistan, but Al Qaeda.

[earth mom]

26. Sounds like ENDLESS WAR to me. nt

[underpants]

35. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8136518&mesg_id=8136555

[AnotherMother4Peace]

51. Limbaugh's spiel: "Obama is going to own this economy & wars. Within 7 months he will be to blame."

Paraphrased. The RW strategy is to turn the blame on Obama ASAP.

[bos1]

55. to hell with Limbaugh

I am coming at this from the point of view of rule of law, international human rights, transparency and openness.

[DCBob]

54. Obama has been talking about doing this since the very beginning of his campaign..

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will" -- Barack Obama, August 2007.

[bvar22]

57. It was wrong when Bush did it.

It is just as WRONG when Obama does it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. That is exactly the size of it.

I can't count the number of times we were outraged when drones bombed innocent people.
Just because Obama is President doesn't mean it won't happen again.

[dbmk]

68. Now, I did not see mention of innocent people in the story

And secondly I did not think it was or is wrong, even when it was done under Bush.

If people like that retreat across a line on paper, and the people in charge on the other side of the line does nothing about it (be it out of lack of capability or will), you have every right to pursue them. At least in my book. Can't say what international law says.

[deadlyaj]

78. It wasnt wrong when Bush did it and it isnt wrong when Obama does it

[Zynx]

87. I question the idea that it is necessarily wrong.

[samsingh]

63. they are training terrorists in pakistan.

[LittleBlue]

65. I agree, K&R

If we do as the Repubs have done, then all this talk of change has been for naught.

I want specific info on why we are killing people.

[dbmk]

69. In this case because they are shooting at you.

[Duende azul]

71. They are shooting at you because you have no business being there waging war.

[cbc5g]

66. Obama thinks that "the ends justify the means".

And I don't blame him.

[dbmk]

67. The area they are attacking is only Pakistan by virtue of a line on a map.

The Pakistani government has zero control or power over the area. I would go as far as to call it a rogue nation of its own.
Any complaint from the Pakistani goverment is only due to internal political interest. Not from a sense of violation. If the Pakistani government could do what the US does, I am somewhat certain that they would.

Now I don't really know if this violates any treaties, but it probably does. But so does harboring terrorists without doing anything to catch them. They will find little sympathy from the community of nations, should they raise the issue beyond statements of objection.

[zulchzulu]

70. North and South Waziristan are ungoverned provinces along the Afghan border

Look it up.

Pakistan has done NOTHING and has taken our money to help stop Taliban and Al Qaeda forces which control the area. Guess what... get off your butt and pay a visit in that region and the Taliban and Al Qaeda would gladly like to practice their beheading techniques on you unless you join them in their 7th Century theocratic view of the World. It would be a nice break from when they are joyously beheading women who dare to teach children how to read.

You may not have gotten the memo that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not your friend. They want to kill you. And your family. And your town. And your country.

Add that it's been a week. We don't even have a Secretary of Defense yet.

If you think it's Utopia now...good luck with that. It's a pretty sophmoric view of the real World.

[deadlyaj]

77. in the words of bush... Kill the bastards, kill the bastards, kill the bastards

these are the badguys, Im just glad we're going on offense with the guys who actually attacked us instead of the bs in iraq

[bvar22]

94. We were attacked by a handful of people ....

....who were funded by the Saudis.
How many innocents (people who had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9-11) are you willing to murder or maim in your blood lust for revenge?

We will NEVER Bomb our Way to Peace in this region.
We may be able to Bribe our Way to Peace as in Anbar, but I don't really support that method either. Enriching the tribal lords has massive potential for blowback.

Better yet, we can find the patience to repair the damage done by the Bush Administration's Invasion and Occupation of an entire country in a failed attempt to capture or kill...what....25 criminals?

Bush let a handful of criminals bring this country to our knees.
Obama is in danger of following the same path.

Bill Clinton was able to capture, prosecute, and imprison the people responsible for the 1st WTC bombing. He did so without violating ANY nation's borders or killing a single innocent civilian.
Perhaps we should study Clinton's approach.

[bos1]

79. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELPFUL REPLIES AND THE HEALTHY DEBATE

I will be thinking about it. It's a hard one since I am very glad to have Obama as president and to see the great things he is already doing.

[Clio the Leo]

80. Because he doesn't do cowering.....

.... HUGE difference between an air strike in a place we had no business in and an air strike in a place that harbors those who wish to do us harm.

[bos1]

82. Well in the end, it's just another part of the mess that Obama inherited. nt

[AtomicKitten]

83. He explained it all through the election; this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. n/t

[sampsonblk]

86. He's only been in office a few days

Give the man a moment to find an alternative. I dont agree with the air strikes. But with only two or three days in office at that time, I can understand why Obama would approve the strike.

If he is still doing this stuff a month from now, without permission from the Pak gov't, then I will complain.

[bos1]

89. that's a reasonable view. thanks. nt