Obama might send troops into Pakistan

DjaugheOld · August 1st, 2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.

"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

Divide Et Impera · August 1st, 2007, 02:04 PM

And it would be long overdue....

My only complaint of it would be the timing. Our military is decimated and it could not handle another invasion. And, frankly, the American people couldn't handle it even if it were the right move. We need to pull bakc, regroup and strike out appropriated with regards to target and time....

82CardsGrad · August 1st, 2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djaughe

"By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

I'm certain that in WWI & WWII America knew exactly how "long" the engagement would last, exactly how much it was going to "cost", and what the "consequences" woud be...

I'll say this for the guy - he certainly latched onto a politicized piece of meat and like a pitbull, won't let go!! Play it for all it's worth Barack...

Mulli · August 1st, 2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

I'm certain that in WWI & WWII America knew exactly how "long" the engagement would last, exactly how much it was going to "cost", and what the "consequences" woud be...

I'll say this for the guy - he certainly latched onto a politicized piece of meat and like a pitbull, won't let go!! Play it for all it's worth Barack...

Ryanwb · August 1st, 2007, 02:16 PM

Let's get back to the "real" reason for the war... fighting terror

Absolute Zero · August 1st, 2007, 02:17 PM

This is being spun negatively by ABC News, the Clinton network, as Obama being pro "invasion" of another country, even though he is the anti-war candidate. I don't read his comments that way. My read is that his emphasis would be on pressuring the Pakastanis to take action. If that failed, which is probable, he would consider limited action, surgical strikes in the mountain areas, with clearly defined objectives, only if we had sound intelligence to act on.

I think it is obvious that he has the wisdom not to get us into another protracted occupation. He is by no means a "warmonger" which is how camp Hillary is trying to spin this.

D-Dogg · August 1st, 2007, 02:41 PM

He isn't "anti-war" he is anti wrong war. He was fully behind Afghanistan, but thought Iraq was flawed on its face.

This is very consistent with his views, as I understand them.

Absolute Zero · August 1st, 2007, 03:49 PM

I agree.

LoyaltyisaCurse · August 1st, 2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

I'm certain that in WWI & WWII America knew exactly how "long" the engagement would last, exactly how much it was going to "cost", and what the "consequences" woud be...

I'll say this for the guy - he certainly latched onto a politicized piece of meat and like a pitbull, won't let go!! Play it for all it's worth Barack...

Please dont even compare the current situation to WWI or WWII! Talk about misleading and ridiculous IMO.

Apples to Oranges...

SirStefan32 · August 1st, 2007, 10:52 PM

Very smart. Threaten and intimidate a guy who is hanging on for dear life because he supports us. Just brilliant.

Gaddabout · August 1st, 2007, 11:29 PM

Wow. I thought Obama was smarter than that. Pakistan is actually a gov't whose sovereignty is recognize by most everyone except India.

Divide Et Impera · August 2nd, 2007, 07:23 AM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/5019784.html

Quote:

Aug. 1, 2007, 11:01PM
Obama has it right: Why not talk to adversaries?

By HELEN THOMAS
Hearst Newspapers

During the Cold War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower often said that he would go anywhere, any time, any place in pursuit of peace.

Ike promoted co-existence with the former Soviet Union and invited Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to visit the United States.

Conservative Republicans were unhappy when President Richard M. Nixon made his surprise journey to hard-line communist China in 1972. But the move was mostly applauded as a diplomatic breakthrough, leading to better relations between the two nations.

The American people rejoiced at those peacemaking gestures and didn't think that Eisenhower — a World War II hero— was naive to talk to the Soviets with the goal of easing tensions between the two super powers, particularly since each had doomsday nuclear arsenals.

There were some hints and hopes — among liberals at least — that President Bill Clinton would open a dialogue with Cuba during his years in the White House. But he was not willing to take the risk and pay the political price — especially in Florida, traditional hotbed of anti-Castro sentiment.

So it is disturbing for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to ridicule Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — her main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination— for saying he would be willing to meet with the reviled leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea, if he's elected president.

And why not? What's wrong with diplomacy?

It may shock Clinton but we often deal with dictators and others who espouse policies that are distinctly at odds with U.S. goals.

Clinton is wrong and Obama is right. Both should be emphasizing the need for a more peaceful world and an end to the daily slaughter in Iraq that has shamed this country's world image. The first order of business for the new president in 2009 should be to repair the damage inflicted by President Bush's disastrous unilateralism.

The verbal sparring between the two Democratic senators over foreign policy has been reduced to name calling. Clinton tagged Obama's statement that he would be willing to talk to shunned leaders after he has won the White House as "irresponsible and frankly naive."

She was also quoted as saying: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year."

Her explanation: "You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse."

Furthermore, Clinton said she did not want "to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings" with Castro, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and others.

Obama dubbed Clinton as "Bush-Cheney lite," which prompted the New York senator to fire back: "What has happened to the politics of hope"— a jab at Obama's campaign theme.

If it is any comfort to her, Clinton has been praised for her stand by the neocons and conservative columnists who have been upset lately about Bush's decision to open a dialogue with Iran and to hold nuclear talks with North Korea.

Better late than never. Such diplomatic spadework led to a closer relationship with Libya after years of hostility.

The talks with North Korea could have been held at the start of the Bush administration but — guided by his neocon advisers — Bush slammed the door at the time on any rapprochement with Pyongyang.

Now it seems the Iraq debacle has given Bush a new awakening to the limitations of power and the possibilities of diplomacy.

As for being naive, surely Clinton must have some regrets for her vote in 2002 to give the president carte blanche to invade Iraq, a sovereign country that did not attack us. She is trying to edge away from that mistake but still refuses to say that her vote was wrong.

Clinton claims that she and others were deceived by the administration's claims against Saddam Hussein, but 23 other senators voted "no" against the war. So who was naive?

Although he was not in the Senate at the time the vote was taken, Obama said he had opposed going to war with Iraq.

Shortly after the president declared "mission accomplished" in 2003, Clinton visited Iraq with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. Both returned home, urging that more troops be sent to Baghdad.

Whoever wins the presidency next will have to put peace at the top of the agenda — and promise to explore the chance of better relations with any opposition early on.

Chaz · August 2nd, 2007, 07:56 AM

Obama is a warmonger and so is Hillary.

dreamcastrocks · August 2nd, 2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

Obama is a warmonger and so is Hillary.

You're kidding right?

CardFan67 · August 2nd, 2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divide Et Impera

And it would be long overdue....

My only complaint of it would be the timing. Our military is decimated and it could not handle another invasion. And, frankly, the American people couldn't handle it even if it were the right move. We need to pull bakc, regroup and strike out appropriated with regards to target and time....

Quote:

1,426,713 personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000

We have more than 2 1/2 million people currently enrolled in the military...

The highest number I can find of U.S. military deployment is 25% and that is using the non reserve numbers, but current numbers look more like 17.5%... Is that decimated? What determines that the U.S. military is decimated?