Makes a whole lot more sense than Trancredo's threat to nuke Mecca.

Geez, Obama keeps looking dumber and dumber and dumber and dumber as a presidential candidate. One day he's all for unilaterally attacking an ally, the next day he says he would never use a nuclear device to kill the head-chopping terrorists.
Barack, you are out of your league running for president.

How about that?
No wonder he is called the JUNIOR senator from Ill. With a joke like that in the white house (heaven forbid), he could wind up just like Carter did. He better engage his brain before he opens his BIG mouth. I think that he will wind up as his own worst enemy with the kind of stupid remarks that he is making.

We will hunt the terrorists down....except if they live in the country of an ally. When did the republicans lose interest in catching the 9/11 terrorists? An ally huh? Is that the ally that you threatened to blow off the map when this started?
Your phoney bologna war on terror just got more bologna on it.

So far, Clinton has publically stated that she felt as Obama did regarding Pakistan and Dodd and Biden stated that might not have "Said it" but that they would "do it".

But no Republican candidates are willing to denounce a strike against a high level Al'Qaeda target in Pakistan if Musharraf can't/won't handle it. I wonder why not? Could it be because Obama's comments aren't as crazy as the voices on the right want folks to think? Could it be because they'd all do the same exact thing if an Al'Qaeda leader's whereabouts were known and Musharraf didn't act on it?

Posted by John D August 2, 2007 2:30 PM

Yeah little Johnny D'Jambajuice, we should just keep following the W/Cheney roadmap for the "War on Terror", you know, the one where they let Bin Laden ESCAPE after saying he was wanted "dead or alive".

You better bring something better than that, waterboy.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

Oh joy. This makes you different that Bush how?

Let's see. A fragmented and tribal mentality ruled society, leadership on egg shells, a dangerous (but beautiful) mountain range... But hey, will be able to forgo all these problems that the Pakistani gov can't (look how sucessful we are in the same environment that is Iraq with the insurgency). We - Americans - will put our boots on the ground. Immediately we will have the cooperation of every tribe (the Pakistani gov can't do anything about but sign treaties just to get them to talk; just like in Iraq when our army started realizing they can't win them over so they signed treaties), Red-mosque-scenarios individuals will have no problem with the US on the ground and will not use us as a ploy to further their political agendas, we will scale the mountains (our military better aware of the range than the enemies and so used to fighting in those circumstances; even though they barely got the idea of how to fight the insurgency in Iraq and this is guerrilla warfare positioning to the second power due to plain), and bc we are Americans al-Qaeda will not try to circumvent a tribe and its leader who has ties to some of the generals in the Pakistani army (some still sympathetic to "freedom fighters") that might be willing to pass off chemical or biological weapons to use in a remote area - mountains - on our men, and given that Musaraf has not denounced being both army head and prime minister (still able to dis-body the role of prime minster and any governmental body - parliament) our presence will stop him from turning what is a fragile leadership to an all out military tyrant with underground weapons trade links (available steady flow of weapons), a nuclear arsenal at his disposal, and looking for any reason to unite his people under his shaky leadership; scapegoating America who has decided to go in with or without his cooperation. Our presence will stop those who want to get rid of Musaraf. They will not point to how the legitimacy of his gov has yet again been proven irrelevant by our presence in order to try to wipe him from power.

Obama is shooting in the dark. Meanwhile we are looking for Iraq II; without having stabilized Iraq I. Which in terrorist terms is a good thing. (By all means they would not be trying to force our hand. First by getting rid of leadership in Iraq (through our doing), then Pakistan (as a consequence of our presence), leaving weak states to jump around from one to the other (with more room available for displacement and that less and less rule and order can reach), try to take over or influence their politics, and then combine those states as a front against the West) Obama is jejune in terms of foreign policy, just like Bush was, and all he needs to do is surround himself with willing ideologues to take over that department, just like Bush did. Bravo. Let us forget the lesson in Iraq. That going into a very complex country, with layers of political parties interests and history, where the tribal mentality rules, (this time with nuclear weapons involved), will all work out bc we are there to get the terrrirrists. Bingo. Obama has it. The ONLY problem in Iraq was that "Saddam was our friend," "he had no weapons," and "al-Qaeda did not exit there until we came." So obviously if we go into a country that is "our enemy","has WMD," and "does have al-Qaeda" we WILL be sucessful. It WILL not be met by any of the issues in Iraq, that exist no mater what your reasoning to go in is, that proved to make the venture an uphill battle. We will go in and be out. Especially, without the cooperation of the government.

OBama, a in-experienced senator looking just like a "Loose Cannon!" What a joke, he don't even know where the "Men's" Room is in the Senate Office building, thats because he is there so little. Why on earth would one use a "Nuke" in hill country is beyond me? I've seen 13 exploded out in Nevada, and that was between the mountains on desert floor.

Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism official, said "I believe his speech is a comprehensive, sophisticated approach to terrorism."

Hey, I don't think OBama knows if he is at foot or horse back. Cliff

Just shut up already. I almost feel bad for him because he is looking worse by the day. Hillary is sitting back and letting this guy destroy himself. Barrack just relax breath and count backwards from 10. Take a day off because you are making some really bad decisions lately.

Who is advising this guy or writing his speeches? What president would take cards off the table? I'd sure love to play poker with Obama; he would foreswear using aces and face cards in an effort to be a "fair player." Thank goodness Harry Truman had a somewhat different approach to international warfare.

You know what the problem is with Obama? He makes way too much sense for most Americans. The republicans have run this country (and this war) on slogans. "Cut and Run", "We have to fight them there or they'll follow us home", etc. Barack actually makes sense and people don't know what to make of it. Why does he want to go to Pakistan even though we are allies with their government? Because that's where the terrorists are. He didn't say we were going to invade but surely when battling religious extremism it might help to have some presence in a country that has always had religious extremists. Unlike Iraq, which didn't until we got there. I don't think this country and the American public are smart enough or think through things enough to deserve a president as reasonable as Obama. All we can handle is another dumb, slogan slinging republican.

I see his lips are moving but all I hear is "blah blah blah"... gimme a break!

Obama's clueless.

Leaders don't restrict their policy options in advance. Ideologues do.

And this is what we get when we listen to the Right:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that he was discouraged by the departure of the major Sunni Arab bloc from Iraq’s coalition government, and noted that the Bush administration may have misjudged the difficulty of achieving reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian factions.

In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration’s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said: "I think the developments on political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level. And clearly the withdrawal of the Sunnis from the government is discouraging. My hope is that it can all be patched back together."

We're so use to business as usual that when Senator Obama starts talking about new ideas everyone throws their arms up and calls him an idiot. Come on people wake up! Our foreign policy has been a disaster for years, and not simply during the Bush Admistration. When Obama talks about military action in Pakistan IF their government can't deal with the situation it doesn't sound naive, it sounds intelligent. When he says he's willing to talk to anyone in the interests of peace, well sorry guys but that makes sense too. We're all so used to hearing the same tired rhetoric that we're shocked when new ideas come along. We aren't the victorious American's we were at the end of WWII, quite the contrary, now we're the hated arrogant super power that wouldn't know real diplomacy if it slapped us in the face. So kudos Senator Obama you have now won my vote.

The military has always had its own viewpoint on operations. Clearly you saw how the Pentagon locked itself into the same old for several years; the White House did too on the counsel of the Pentagon, in Iraq at that time. Thinking their fighting would be enough to fix completely non-military problems that were just adding fuel for the military to fight. The Pentagon has always looked at strategy, but sometimes the strategy will have completely unintended consequences; we will be REQUIRED to deal with if we really want the thing we are going after "terrorism" to be in check (or are we just talking about our own skins while millions of others in Third World Countries or War Torn Countries or War Torn Countries trying to Rebuild are and will be subjected to - terror tactics - on a daily basis to subvert regional populations - as a result of our "plunder" - presence -; whether our aims ARE to overthrow a government or NOT; in the case of Pakiland since that is not our aim it doesn't mean we shouldn't consider how we go in, and what that will do to the environment or the leadership there; strengthen and embolden leadership to a point of tyrant or collapse to be picked over by fanatic fundamentalist factions). Is Clarke addressing how to execute the strategy (which by all means could be sound as much as ours was to quickly get rid of Saddam), or is he addressing both the counter-terrorism strategy , and how it will inevitably exist in the broader context within which it will inhabit; with unintended consequences that ALWAYS come like a chain reaction?(And "toppling" al-Qaeda really isn't like toppling THE tyrant bc you the tyrant - as a result of our presence - will be in our back yard to contend with and all the minions along with him; since we are crashing the party with no invitation). They don't care for the chain reaction or what it might mean OUTSIDE the strategy which DOES have consequences and may very well inhibit our objectives or drag us into something ales. They don't care for the latter, bc to them that is besides their objectives; being outside of the objectives DOES NOT mean it isn't relevant or counter productive, or unwise.

Colin Powell has consulted with Obama. A moderate who lost to this Administration all the important decisions at the time when they were being made about Iraq. He too suggested we go into Pakistan. So what. A) We shouldn't be in the business of using our narrow self-interests to justify our actions and think it will absolve us from the consequences of them; or lack of consideration of the ramification and safe guarding against them; when you go chasing after a terrorist state to state irrelevant of boundaries. B) We aren't talking about states, but headless organizations, we are going after on what may amount to a GREAT selective ground operation that WILL have outside consequences and will IN THE END benefit terrorist. With Pakistan it will be 3 for Terrorist and extremists (who need plight that keeps people in ignorance in order to exist), and O for the US (even if it feels good - and by good it would - to have Osama bin Laden's head). C) What looked good when Powell suggested narrowing our already narrow strategy in Iraq, and moveing into Pakiland might have seemed good at the time, but the aims of this administration's foreign policy are still shifting the ME. Not exactly the best place to be making any judgment calls or plans (irrelevant of what the reality is now by choosing Iraq), and what was good at one point dose not mean with the shifting politics in the ME it would be a good call now or worse in 09. (Going back to "seemed good at the time." Well, not really if you want to get rid of terrorism you have to get rid of shaky and unstable grounds; getting rid of a gang in a tough neighborhood will NOT get rid of gangs; it would be only for the purposes of self gratification selective to that particular group not the threat such groups pose; translation band aid. Moreover without tending to shaky grounds where authorities have little or no control of their neighborhood, a crack down DISPLACES the problem to the next available shaky neighborhood; even with the blessings of the authorities but will be way worse with out their blessing) Complete sense; withdraw form one if-y secured area to another (ironically funding operations forces there or putting our boots on the ground irrelevant to the gov without safe guards against a backlash) will get al-Qaeda to move yet again; maybe back to Iraq. Are we going to move into Iraq again. This is chess as if the ME was a chess board. So far from what I heard Obama needs to think critically about this situation. Another thing, there is a slight possibility that things will change politically in Pakiland and Bush will get joint operations to go into the mountain range within the coming year with the blessing from Musaraf or who will replace him. What will Obama be running on???

On another note..."You know what the problem is with Obama? He makes way too much sense for most Americans." Whatever. "Most Americans" have invested the time to look at the broad view and narrow view (past the talking points) of what this administration has fouled up on, and "most Americans" don't feel that hitting a great "counter point" (ahum talking point) in retrospect to Bush's foul up ("Hey were is Osama" - as valid as that critique is -) is enough to vote on someone when clearly they seem to be making some really really premature judgment calls. It is completely true that Obama is testing the waters at his own risk to see what will hook the public while the other hyenas sit back ready to quantify that and then his "errrrs"; irrelevant to whether or not it is a good idea. I can only speak for one American, and this American will not settle for "great wind up," but not much substance.

Our enemy is Al-Qaeda not the people of Afghanistan or Pakistan. What is wrong with being reluctant to mutilate future generations of innocents? Also why are Republicans still to this day defending Osama Bin Laden from being captured or killed at any cost?

I am completely baffled by these arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't leave Iraq because it would "embolden the terorrists" and make us look weak. But we can't ratchet up the pressure on Pakistan to get tough with Al Qaeda, because if we bring Bin Laden's head on a platter, we're "emboldening the terrorists?"

It makes my head spin the extent to which both left and right are willing to use the EXACT OPPOSITE ARGUMENTS in one situation than they would in a similar situation.

The right thinks we need to finish the job in Iraq to not look weak. The whole point was to show how big and tough and strong and omnipotent we are. But we can't use that same might to go after THE REAL ENEMIES in Pakistan, because there, if we're heavy handed, then we'll breed more terrorists? SO WHICH IS IT REPUBLICANS? How does your view of Iraq in the "War on Terror" fit with your view of Pakistan in said conflict?

As for Democratic naysayers, I won't speak for all, but my beef with the whole Iraq concept is that it was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't argue that pacifism is best, only that the use of force should only be demonstrated, prudently (following the Powell Doctrine) and only in instances where a threat is imminent and the chances for success and the benefits of success outweigh the potential cost of failure.

But Al Qaeda is resting safely in Pakistan. We have allowed a terrorist mini-state to emerge, and it was largely our own making (by not finishing the job in Afghanistan because we had already shifted focus to Iraq by December of 2001). Something has to be done, because we've already seen what unperturbed, patient murderers can do if given enough breathing room.

Its PAST time for us to start getting tough with Pakistan, a policy I have vociferously advocated ever since the Afghan conflict was redirected to Iraq.

Finally, I am abolutely flabbergasted every time I hear anyone say catching Bin Laden (and his old guard lieutenants like Zawahiri) is largely irrelevant. My father, with whom I almost always agree on issues of politics, also subscribes to the "doesn't really matter" notion.

Now I'm not a CIA analyst, so I mainly approach this anecdotally, and certainly acknowledge that taking out Bin Laden may not effect operation much in the near and middle term.

Nonetheless, the symbolic value of "The Sheik's" having survived a worldwide manhunt by the only superpower using essentially all resources at their disposal and for nearly 6 years FAILING to bring its public enemy #1 in or even harrass him into staying on the run MUST be a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Think about it, he's the ultimate David vs Goliath. You really think that knowing that a small group of "pious" men living in a cave in the middle of nowhere can assault the world's strongest country and force it to change almost every single aspect of its existence isn't romantic and encouraging to young Muslims who may be already inclined to join the movement? You don't think it would help to have Bin Laden's head on a stick to show the Muslim world that he's just a man, an evil one at that, and not a mythical creature of unimagined cunning?

Ok, if that doesn't work, let's try the flipside. What if a terrorist took out President Bush? Don't you think that might demoralize the nation he leads to know that our enemies were capable of taking out our (granted, not-very-well-liked) leader?

Bin Laden's survival is a pox on this "war." Saddam's head was simply no substitute, no matter how much Bush & Co wishes it were so. We must get Bin Laden.

One last note for ANYONE still dumb enough to bring up Clinton having not captured Bin Laden: ain't so easy, is it? Mr. Bush has infinitely more resources to do so, and has failed. If you are STILL going to bring up Clinton, please explain why, if it were shameful for Clinton not to have captured him (and please, enough with the long discredited "Bin Laden was offered up but Clinton turned it down" Faux News talking point), why it is less shameful that Bush has failed with far more resources and a nation united around the cause.

Bryan. I'll correct you as far as my posting is concerned.

Leaving Iraq in the security state that it IS NOW would leave the terrorists lands to go unchecked bc it would be grounds that aren't covered by an adequate security force. Going into Pakistan, depending on how we go in and what happens after, entails the POSSIBILITY for the terrorists to EXPAND the battlefield - unstable ground - to yet another country. ANYONE who is familiar or lived through war like conditions (the necessity for security) and anyone who is familiar with the subject matter - terrorist - who come from societies living under a rock (thriving on the lack of security there to deal with them leading to their continued existence) would understand the GRAVITY of the facts on the ground in Iraq (necessity to leave responsibly), or the GRAVITY of the need to evaluate ARE we EXTENDING the grounds for terrorists. That is not a death sentence to the idea of going after Osama. It is a call to be cautious in constructing what we do from now on. We can not be selective to the facts we like and the ones we don't; that was Bush.

So what we catch Osama - great - and in the process we bombed another country, where possibly, as a result of our actions, the leadership has a CHANCE of being overthrown by a fundamentalists group increasing a chance for the terrorists to live under, a CHANCE for opposition to grow violently stronger against Americans bc we killed innocents (don't kid yourself selective campaigns kill by standards), a CHANCE to misconstrue as Americans attacking Islam GIVEN Iraq and Afghanistan (we can't dismiss the reality it posses -IS - bc it was the wrong place at the wrong time; the people where the military actions are taking place will NOT understand), or a CHANCE to give Musaraf a chance to dissolve the fragile government Pakistan has; to gain a strangle of a hold on the place. Oh wait, the only way to rectify the chance of a counterproductive leadership, or chance of a fragile government being disbanded and over run under a military is to NATION BUILD once again.

All I'm pointing out is what Obama is saying has consequences besides the strategy. This is given Iraq, as an example. I'm not making a case for the legitimacy of one AGAINST the other. I'm asking that the public is exposed to the whole picture, and not what just the leadership presents bc, tracing back the whole ordeal regardless of anti-war or pro war blog talking points, that IS what faltered the mission in Iraq (whether or not is was right.)

We had a great strategy and execution of over throwing Saddam. The Pentagon and the WH were testing the use of narrow strategy ( involving less forces; for selective operations), but what they forgot (were naive about) was what they would do after; thinking the Iraqis would take over (thanks to the exiles who are ALWAYS UNAWARE of society the left and its current condition). Originally, at the beginning our military was there to overthrow Saddam, get him, and get the terrorists. So when we went in there was no units assigned to protect infrastructures. The looting, where the over all mission begin to fail on the ground precipitating a chain reaction (other then in the conceptualization and presentation), that took place was the result of the lack of security you need to establish when your coming in to depose a gov. That requires more forces, more commitment, that the WH did no want to present to the public (the whole picture of what it would take) bc it would entail confirming the publics views that this IS nation building, and it is a huge undertaking; tarnish the case for going in like we did.

Iraq is not Pakistan. Two very different cases (with possibly very different aims) that will need the military strategy to look at the OVERALL effect it will have so we don't do more damage than necessary (addressing the whole picture and safe guarding). For that reason it shouldn't get tied up in the righteous calls to get Osama. (Narrow presentation of what we might be POTENTIALY be facing) It is not that simple. Iraq and Pakistan do have some overlap (for example the outside effect a certain military operation will have). For this reason, especially given Iraq, too it shouldn't be taken lightly; in simplest calls to be righteous (Narrow presentation of what we might be POTENTIALLY facing.)

He needs to understand what it is that he's talking about. By relaying the same message Bush did ( irrelevant if one is really addressing the problem of Osama) Obama is showing that he DOES NOT realize the gravity what it means to invade a country, or bomb a country in the ME where our presence is unwelcome, and as our presence is shifting the politics. What is worse is that he thinks he is completely justified just bc Bush made a mistake. Lame way to argue. Trivializing the complexity that Iraq or terrorism is.

As to you questions.

Why would getting rid of one guy change the threat such groups pose in regressive or stagnant societies. The cause of terrorism isn't the existence of Osama; if anything now its past the time that getting him would change things. As a result of Iraq fundamentalists are putting up a fight in many regressive or trouble some countries. The presence of security forces, the reach, the state, the legitimacy, the corruption level; is the only factor that will in the longer aims put terrorism into check. (as well as information haring between countries in regards to terrorism).

You really think that by getting rid of Osama someone won't want to take his place. Someone to avenge his death. Just like if someone did take out Bush. We'd retaliate. If terrorism will always exist; as proof it always has for ages. Taking out Osama will not change things as dramatically as paople think. That doest mean that we shouldn't go after him. We should, but that will not only take moral but wise decisions; acknowledging what Pakistan is and the possibilities it offers so we do get it right. It is not enough to use Bush's weaknesses "Saddam was our friend", "terrorism didn't exist there" "Osama is somewhere alse" and apply it to the place where it would fit; without realizing that there are other reasons that the Iraq War was messy. And, even given poor reasons to go in the Iraq War could have been made that much more easier than that much worse given the difficult venture it was to begin with.