The "Obama Wants to Bomb Pakistan" Lie

[babylonsister]

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/20/the-quot-obama-wants-to-bomb-pakistan-quot-lie.aspx

The "Obama Wants to Bomb Pakistan" Lie


Last night John McCain accused Barack Obama of, among other things, having "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." This is a lie.

The basis for it is a foreign policy address Obama made last August, in which he said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. 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 was clearly referencing a New York Times story from the previous month, describing how the administration had actionable intelligence about senior al Qaeda leaders, and planned a snatch-and-grab mission, but aborted it at the last second. As the Times reported, "The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda."

Further in the same spech, Obama offered a little more detail about the kind of anti-terrorist mission he envisions:

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same.

There is nothing in Obama's speech, or any other Obama speech, about "bombing" Pakistan. Both implicitly and explicitly, he called for small, Special Operations-type incursions.

Meanwhile, you know who is coming closer to "bombing an ally"? The Bush administration, whose determined prosecution of the war on terror McCain continues to tout. The Washington Post reported -- as it happens, the same day McCain made his smear -- that the CIA launched Hellfire missiles at an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. As the Post noted, "Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval."

So, to review: Obama did not call for bombing Pakistan, ever. Meanwhile the Bush administration is undertaking air attacks against targets in Pakistan. Is this wildly irresponsible? I suppose you could make that case. But McCain isn't interested in an argument about the merits of striking al Qaeda against the costs of undermining Pervez Musharraf. He's just interested in lying about what Obama said in order to portray him as a foreign policy novice.

--Jonathan Chait

[Mz Pip]

1. Bomb bomb bomb

bomb bomb Iran.

Shut up John. You just sound silly.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. I've read it carefully and it still says what it says ... not your interpretation

Ambiguity should work in our favor, but your candidate doesn't yet know his role. I'll repeat: spare us his learning curve.

[k8conant]

5. Are you on the other side of reason?

yes, it says what it says and was read correctly by babylonsister. That bit about "learning curve" should indeed be applied to McCain whose curve is all downhill.

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Sorry, but there's reading and there's reading into ... your candidate

has left open the possibility of another invasion and that's appropriate. But be careful about McCain ... whatever his limitations, he served honorably. Neither Democratic candidate has that record, which establishes credibility with the public.

[k8conant]

3. McCain needs to be called on his blatant lies...

that guy and his wife are the latest scourge to be unleashed by the Republicans.

[JorgeTheGood]

11. Call McCain on his lies???

not a chance ... the MSM will provide just as much cover for McCain as they did for Bush.

Get used to it because once Hillary is out ... McCain will become their new Obama and Obama will become their new Hillary.

[LadyVT]

4. Here are links about it

What mediamatters dot org says about it (and I don't personally care about the Bush doctrine part, I don't think Obama is a Bushie, I am really just concerned about his willingness to invade and the international outcry after he made his comments):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001

And here is another take on the same story, from last August, from the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_amer...

Obama discussed this in the NH debate, and again last week. He reaffirmed his position. If the Pakistani government won't do something to get Osama out of their country, Obama will use our military to strike the terrorist targets there. No mention is made of what he'll do if other countries don't agree with him on that.

I'm sorry this is upsetting to some Obama supporters, but please pay attention to what he actually says. Perhaps it isn't that important to you, and you'll vote for him anyway. But to many of us, it is a key issue. I've had enough of cowboy diplomacy, especially from someone who keeps talking about building consensus.

[k8conant]

7. 1st link says nothing about bombing; 2nd link gets 404 error n/t

[AtomicKitten]

6. It's typical mischaracterization for a purpose.

Obama said IF he had actionable intelligence on Bin Laden in the mountains between Pakistan and Iraq and IF Pakistan failed to act, he would not hesitate to launch a surgical strike on Bin Laden.

It would be a reasonable and justifiable reckoning for 9/11 and would bring closure to our horribly misguided war on Iraq.

[oviedodem]

8. Not to mention that is basically what we did after 9/11 so

the lies keep coming forward.

What is next.

[9119495]

10. "The Democratic Party wants to bring Osama bin Laden...

and his followers to justice. It should have been a priority for our whole nation."

Sounds great against what McCain said, right?

[Skip Intro]

12. Obama also calls for getting troops "out of Iraq" and onto the "right battlefields of Pakistan

and Afghanistan"

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

and check this video, he says he supports a time table to get our troops in Iraq home, then changes it to getting them "out" then home again so that we can get onto the right battlefields.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNb-MwQw-i8


He seems pretty adamant about military force on the "right battlefield" of Pakistan, with ground troops, one could assume, since he'd be moving soldiers from Iraq to do that.

[RestoreGore]

13. I don't trust either of them on this

"But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans":

So we already know they are there? I thought we didn't know where Bin Laden was, and that Benazir Bhutto actually did an interview where she claimed he was dead.


"They are plotting to strike again.":

Wow, sorry, but that does sound like Bush fearmongering to me.


"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.":

Does that mean nukes? And under what authority will we act? Sorry, can't stand McCain, but I'm not comfortable with this either.

[krabigirl]

15. Me neither.

[RestoreGore]

16. I can bet you that if he gets us in another war those who support him will support it

Then many will really know what a despicable sport politics is.

[babylonsister]

14. If this is the best McCain’s got….

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14640.html

If this is the best McCain’s got….
Posted February 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am


snip//

It’s almost as if the GOP spin doctors have sent out word that these are the two talking points to emphasize. I have no idea why — they’re both wrong and dumb.

Obviously, when it comes to Republican attacks, truth and facts are utterly irrelevant — though I’m sure a New York Times pundit will no doubt praise McCain for lying about Obama in such a clumsy way — but it’s probably worth taking a moment to set the record straight.

First, Obama did not recommend “invading” Pakistan. For McCain to even make the claim suggests Mr. Straight Talk is going straight for Mr. Dishonesty, nine full months before the general election. What Obama did say is that he would be willing to authorize strikes against “high-value terrorist targets,” even in Pakistan, as part of an aggressive counter-terrorism campaign. If McCain believes we shouldn’t pursue high-value terrorist targets, maybe he should take a moment to explain to Americans why that is. I’m sure we’d all love to hear about it.

Second, Obama has not recommended embracing enemies, so much as he’s laid out a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy. If McCain believes we ought to prefer bombing Iran to talking to Iranians, I’m sure that, too, would make for a fascinating campaign discussion.

But taking a step back, does anyone seriously believe these are effective lines of attack? Obama wants to kill terrorists and try diplomacy with rivals. And this is bad, why?