Bill Sammon reported contrast in Obama, Bush positions on Pakistan, but not Bush flip-flops
SUMMARY: On Special Report, The Washington Examiner's Bill Sammon asserted that, in contrast with Sen. Barack Obama's recent statement, President Bush said at a press conference, "[W]e'll go after terrorists in Pakistan, but we'll work with Musharraf to do that," as Sammon put it. In fact, Bush refused to give a direct answer about whether he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan without Musharraf's consent, and he has given conflicting statements on this issue in the past.
On the August 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, referring to Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) recent statement that as president, he would take action against "high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf "won't act," Bill Sammon, Washington Examiner senior White House correspondent and Fox News contributor, asserted that President Bush put "some distance between himself and Barack Obama" on this issue, claiming that, during his August 6 press conference, Bush said, "[W]e'll go after terrorists in Pakistan, but we'll work with Musharraf to do that," as Sammon put it. In fact, during the press conference, Bush refused to give a direct answer to a question on the issue of whether he would pursue terrorists in Pakistan without Musharraf's consent, and he has given conflicting statements on this issue in the past.
Special Report guest host Bret Baier aired a video clip of Bush from the press conference, in which Bush said: "I'm confident that with actionable intelligence, we will be able to bring top Al Qaeda to justice. We're in constant communications with the Pakistan government. It's in their interest that foreign fighters be brought to justice. After all, these are the same ones who were plotting to kill President Musharraf. We share a concern. And I'm confident, with real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done." Baier then asked Sammon, "[H]ow does that sound bite from the president play versus what Barack Obama said last week?" During an August 1 foreign policy speech, Obama said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Sammon replied: "I think that was the president putting some distance between himself and Barack Obama, saying, 'Look, we'll go after terrorists in Pakistan, but we'll work with Musharraf to do that.' "
But the statement Baier aired came in response to a question about whether Bush would "wait for Musharraf's permission to send in U.S. forces" if there was "actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of top Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, even if it meant missing an opportunity to take them out." Bush did not address the part of the question about "wait[ing] for Musharraf's permission":
Q.: Mr. President, if you had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of top Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, would you wait for Musharraf's permission to send in U.S. forces, even if it meant missing an opportunity to take them out? Or have you and Musharraf worked out some deal about this already?
And President Karzai, what will be your top concern when you meet with Musharraf later this week?
BUSH: I'm confident that with actionable intelligence, we will be able to bring top Al Qaeda to justice. We're in constant communications with the Pakistan government. It's in their interest that foreign fighters be brought to justice. After all, these are the same ones who were plotting to kill President Musharraf. We share a concern. And I'm confident, with real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done.
Further, as Media Matters for America has documented, in September 2006, Bush gave conflicting statements on the subject of whether he would go after terrorists in Pakistan without Musharraf's consent. During a September 20, 2006, interview with CNN host Wolf Blitzer, when Blitzer asked whether he would "give the order to kill them [Osama bin Laden and others] or capture them" in Pakistan, Bush replied, "Absolutely." When Blitzer pressed, asking if Bush would give the order "[e]ven though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory," Bush again responded, "Absolutely," adding: "We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice." From the interview:
BLITZER: If you had good, actionable intelligence in Pakistan -- where they [bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and/or Mullah Muhammad Omar] were -- would you give the order to kill him or capture him --
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: -- and go into Pakistan?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory?
BUSH: Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring them to justice.
However, during a September 15, 2006, press conference, when asked why he thinks "it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden wherever he is," Bush said: "Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. ... In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan." Additionally, during an August 1 press briefing, White House press secretary Tony Snow addressed Obama's pledge to take action against "high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan, echoing Bush on September 15, 2006, rather than Bush on September 20, 2006. As the Chicago Tribune noted, Snow said: "[O]ur approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government."
In addition, contrary to Sammon's suggestion that Obama indicated he would not attempt to "work with Musharraf" to go after terrorists in Pakistan, Obama did pledge cooperation with Pakistan. From Obama's August 1 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:
OBAMA: And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
From the August 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BUSH: I'm confident that with actionable intelligence, we will be able to bring top Al Qaeda to justice. We're in constant communications with the Pakistan government. It's in their interest that foreign fighters be brought to justice. After all, these are the same ones who were plotting to kill President Musharraf. We share a concern. And I'm confident, with real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done.
BAIER: That was President Bush today at Camp David answering a question -- whether he would send U.S. troops into Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda leaders. This, of course, comes after last week's speech by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in which he said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
We're back with our panel. Bill, how is this playing, and how does that sound bite from the president play versus what Barack Obama said last week?
SAMMON: I think that was the president putting some distance between himself and Barack Obama, saying, "Look, we'll go after terrorists in Pakistan, but we'll work with Musharraf to do that."
Barack Obama was suggesting that, unilaterally, the U.S. would somehow go in there and attack terrorists in Pakistan, which is not a great idea, considering that Pakistan is our ally and that could, you know, destabilize the country and result in the ouster of Musharraf, which would make things worse.
So, Bush was very gingerly putting some distance between himself and Obama because the Pakistani government and our State Department were not pleased with Obama's comments.
At least Obama seems to understand that al-qeida is hiding in Pakistan and he will put Pakistan on notice. I do not hear Bush saying this.
I been waitin' for the pachyderm Party of LIARS to get game on Pakistan. And cut 'em off at the pass.
The reader must absolutely know the history there, here, in order to comprehend the plays of the day, today ... and the play's the thing.
Full web of meaning in one meaningless Chou En-Lai 4-word review: "firing an empty cannon."
Come one, come all, read how Herbert and Henry waste Dubya from Srinagar to Kashgar. It's a one-way ticket.
Funny how so many are eager to attack Pakistan now. Pakistan is supposedly an ally nation, one of our client states. And they just want to bomb them. On Crusade, is we? Pakistan has given us everything we've asked for. The NWFP is pretty secure, few attacks from that sector. Waziristan and Baluchistan are still hostile, but that's ethnic, not Taliban. It's in Afghanistan were we have the responsibility...and we chose to leave the Taliban in the southwest alone. Then whine at Pakistan. Typically American.
Here's the best answer for fighting terrorism in Afghanistan/Pakistan:
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/
Liberating the huddled masses and giving them the free air of democracy and human rights and .....we'll bomb them to make it happen. Right? Those children are why we should not be fighting there. So they can grow up in peace, not die in peices.
We can mop up Al-Qaeda in two years and end all desire for terrorism against the US if our foreign and war policy was run by someone interested in resolution and peace. Vote Green or Libertarian. Peace is Victory.
Obama did not call for bombing of Pakistan. For pete's sake REDKING can you hate America any more than you already do? Is that even possible?
Our entire political establishment shows the utmost disregard for human life and and almost psychotic, nay, psychopathic desire to bomb people on the other side of the planet. Any US politician that mentions Pakistan in even the remotest of hostile terms probably has a bomb to throw. AL-Qaeda is not in Pakistan, we have been shelling civilian homes in their northern cities and making ourselves very unpopular though. This is US foreign policy the way DC makes it, not me. Obama's foreign policy is totally establishment, he would bomb if the arms industry ordered it. Him War Party candidate. Bad ju-ju for nation.
Everyone says I hate the country but I shout the loudest to defend it from the crazies in DC with all the bombs.
Amazing. Obama was talking in reference to the recent reporting that in 2005, the US had actionable intel about senior members of AL Quada having a meeting in Pakistan. He was saying we should have gone in and taken them out, and that given that cahnce, eh would. This is the exact same thing the right has been saying for the last 6 years regarding Clinton.
Hannity and Limbaugh harp on it every chance they get. "Clinton could have gotten Osama and let him go! It's all Clinton's fault!" Now the press is bending over backwards as to not put the exact same blame on Bush. I have seen the middle of the quote removed so as not to mention the 2005 intel, and I have watched the "news" shows talk around that part of the speach. Again I ask, where is this liberal media I hear so much about?
Sammon is just another GOP hack. He formerly worked for Messiah Moon, and wrote a book about how Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 election. On a TV talk show after his book came out, he said that he observed all kinds of cheating by the Democrats. When asked if he saw ANYTHING questionable done by the Republicans, he said that they were squeaky clean. Credibility?