Barack Obama Vows To Kill Bin Laden, Conservatives (and Some Liberals) Cry Foul In a major foreign policy speech today, Barack Obama vowed that if he is elected Commander In Chief, he would do anything to pursue, apprehend, or kill the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks against New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania. This is a position supported by the vast majority of Americans, and was the reason why the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 had such widespread support. For articulating this common sense, basic position, Senator Obama is being attacked from the right and left. The right's position, as usual, is not less intellectually honest. The same group of people who support and continue to support the misguided and morally wreckless invasion and occupation of Iraq are all of a sudden aghast at an endorsement of common sense military force because it happens to be advocated by a Democrat. Obama said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Wow, that crazy b*stard. They support Bush's ill-fated "surge" but not the killing of terrorists. Why? Because a Democrat said it. They've taken this opportunity to claim Obama wants to invade Pakistan, but he didn't say that. He said he wanted to kill terrorists. Why is the right against killing terrorists? Just because George W. Bush has repeatedly let Osama Bin Laden slip through our hands (like at Tora Bora), that's no reason to get huffy when a Democratic candidate refuses to follow in those footsteps. On the left, the critique is at least rooted in something resembling honesty, but it's almost as ridiculous. At least one pundit on the left, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD says that Sen. Obama supports unilateral war on the middle east with this speech - but Sen. Obama said no such thing! Again, the Senator is simply echoing the concerns of the vast majority of Americans in that he will actually follow through on the post-9/11 rhetoric to bring Bin Laden and his ilk to justice. If we have to cross Pakistan's border to kill Bin Laden, so be it. Sen. Obama proposed a common sense foreign policy alternative to the Bush doctrine of terrorist appeasement. This should be cheered, not derided. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-willis/barack-obama-vows-to-kill_b_58765.html
In an election cycle, you want to avoid being branded. Edwards got hit with the 'girly man' brand. Howard Dean got hit with the 'insane' brand. Hillary got hit with the 'bittch' brand. Obama's performance in the last debate + this Pakistan machismo/foolishness just landed him the 'naive' brand. It's all over the news. Just watch how the word 'naive' is used in connection with his name over the next few months. CIRCLING THE DRAIN
If US decided to do the job themselves, we better prepare to stay there, not just erecting a interim puppet ineffective government, but doing what was done in Japan after the WWII by shouldering up the entire responsibilities. In other words, do some serious nation building business. Are we prepared to do that in Pak? If that is too much for us to stomach, it is better to put pressure on the general and send in small units if necessary. The key is that we don't want to piss off too many people and generate more anti-american sentiment while doing our jobs. Sending some troops in and pulling them back right away may kill some terrorists, but creating much more in the long term.
I don't think you understand Obama's proposal. It isn't that we topple the govt. of Pakistan. It is that we go in get OBL and leave. It isn't about tearing down or building a nation in Pakistan. The problem is that terrorists are operating training camps freely in Pakistan. OBL is there as well. We want to go in get them, and get out. It isn't about a conflict with the Pakistani govt.
You've been hit with the coward brand because you are too afraid of Pakistan to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11. It is on record in this very thread.
Down 2 points from last month at this early stage isn't really tumbling, and it is still too early to be desperate as well. It is sound, common sense, well thought out, and well articulated.
they must hate 9-11 victims. oh well it kills me that some people say the roles have been reversed in this thread, no they haven't, we knew all along iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. meanwhile this guy is talking about going after the guy actually responsible for 9-11 instead of some dictator who may have tried to assassinate his father.
Tumbling in the polls? The latest polls in the first three primary states (the most important ones for now) show Obama leading in SC, tied in NH, and trailing in Iowa. That's his best showing so far. However, as mentioned earlier, even those polls have little relevance at this point. All that matters at this point is being in the top tier of candidates. You realize how far back Kerry and Clinton were at this point in the primaries? It's like you just make up rationales to support a nonsense argument.
Don't know what the numbers were last month but the new poll has him at 22% to Hillary's 43% I agree with the other posters who say that going from Iraq to Pakistan seems to just be a lil silly. Also, I'm pretty sure we have a massive covert operation there already, so unless Obama is talking about sending a formal invasion force over there, it seems a bit redundant. Anyway, I think he'll be a strong candidate in 2012 if Rudy wins the general election in '08
Why does stopping a war that wasn't about terrorism, and shifting the focus to where the terrorist leadership is, sound silly? Last month Obama was at 24% and Hillary was at either 41 or 39%. As for massive covert force in Pakistan, I wouldn't believe it. Earlier in the thread there was an article posted showing some in the Intel community's displeasure at not being allowed to send in cover forces, and intel agents. And Obama is not talking about going in with full scale invasion and occupying force. That isn't his goal nor should it be. He wants to go where the terrorist leadership and training camps are operating and wipe them out. I am baffled that people think that is a silly or naive idea.
I'm pretty sure there are covert operations there, despite what they say. Shrug, his idea sounds like saber rattling. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not, but if he was trying to outhawk Hillary, it's not working. Perhaps it was poor timing, or maybe the words were too harsh, but right now it seems that his foreign policy (to borrow it from the NY Post) is to talk to enemies unconditionally, and send in unauthorized troops into allied countries. I know the idea isn't to send in an invasion force, but who do you think will get stuck with the bill if Pakistan collapses while our unauthorized troops are there? If the aim is to go after the people who have killed thousands of Americans, why not send in an attack squad into Colombia? The cocaine trade (directly and indirectly) has killed far more Americans than any terrorist activity that I know of. The Colombian gov't doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it (or doesn't want to due to corruption), so why not send in a few thousand troops there and raze the cartels' hideouts?
Liberals, please tell me what you think would happen if we launched an invasion of Pakistan without Musharraf's support? Thanks
I do understand his position very well. My problem is exactly his "going in, getting them, and getting out" position. If it is a covert action, which will not raise too much local resentment, I am all for it. But secretly sending too much not-so-secret troops as proposed in the mentioned 2005 operation, I doubt that people in Pakistan will be happy with it. Although we did not intent to topple the govt., it might indirectly trigger such an event. I believe that is what people were and are worrying about.
man, this is why I never come over here. the hypocrisy and blindness run amok. So on one hand a man is criticized for "sounding" articulate without acknowledging the fact that he might actually BE articulate. Criticized for suggesting if we have actionable intelligence about location of known terrorists we should act on that intelligence in the interest of national security. I think we should just start invading countries like the Netherlands as this would be much easier and probably accomplish as much in regards to national security as the invasion of Iraq. Ok, maybe that is a bit of a stretch as our policy in Iraq has actually helped compromise our national security instead of enhancing it as was the plan. Well, as much of a plan as the administration had in place anyway. Partisan politics sucks period. I hate democrats. I hate republicans. All of you are a bunch of yes men that can't think for yourselves. Grow some balls people. Stand up for what is right instead of toting the party line and casting stones at each other. And Trader name caller - you are pathetic. It is people like you who undermine the freedoms our founding fathers set in motion. I challenge you to a duel at dawn. *slaps with glove*
pathetic man. you sure can twist things and repeat vaguely clever names for challengers to your chosen political cult but truth is still something that seems to dance around the edges of your comprehension. Invasion of Pakistan? I think there is a difference between sending a strike force or a cruise missile at a confirmed target and invasion - but I'm not a robot who lets some pill popping extremist talk show host dictate what I believe is right and wrong. let's set up a fictitious scenario. We have intelligence that top members of AQ are in the hills of Pakistan and we know the exact location. They won't be there long. We send in a strike force and the mission is successful and we pull out. What do you think is going to happen? Nuclear war? Political unrest in Pakistan? It would cause tension for sure, but would do far more for the war on terror than the Iraq war which has been a complete disaster (with your party needing to except the blame for failed policy). It seems so easy for fanatic Republicans to cast stones but much more difficult for them to stand up and take responsibility for those stones. I hate politicians and I hate memorized party slogans. You should just go the extra step and become a radical muslim or a nazi as you are not as far away as you might think. fool.
What if the tables were reversed and Pakistan hit the US with a cruise missile. Would you shrug that off as if nothing happened? HA! How then, could Pakistan shrug it off? Your logic is just foolhardy! That's already an unstable country with deep undercurrents of extremism. They have nukes. They have a 40 million man army. But it's ok, I'm sure none of them will care if we launch an invasion of their country. Your naivete is about on par with Barack Obama's. Changing gears, this is something that hasn't been raised, but what division within Islam does Obama have ties with? Is his family's religion at odds with Pakistan? Could that possibly have something to do with his imperialistic hawkish-ness towards our ally?
