Kurtz claimed he "didn't see anyone reporting that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan"
In the August 8 edition of his column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz noted Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) August 6 statement that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan" in his August 1 foreign policy speech and that "the misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up." Kurtz described Obama as "blaming the media" and responded: "I sure didn't see anyone reporting that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan." Kurtz continued: "I read that he would be willing to conduct raids against al-Qaeda without necessarily getting permission from Pakistan's sovereign government." In fact, numerous media outlets have reported that Obama, in the August 1 speech, stated that he was willing to "invade Pakistan."
During the speech, Obama asserted that "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will," but he did not elaborate on the nature of this action:
OBAMA: As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
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.
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.
During an August 6 campaign appearance in Iowa, an audience member asked Obama about his Pakistan comments, and Obama responded, "The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up. I never called for an invasion of Pakistan."
Despite Kurtz's suggestion to the contrary, numerous media outlets reported that Obama said he intended or was willing to "invade" Pakistan, including ABC News, CBS News, several major newspapers, MSNBC, Fox News, and columns in The Weekly Standard and the New York Post.
Network news broadcasts
- During the August 1 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, reporting on "some exclusive excerpts and comments" from Obama's speech obtained by ABC News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper asserted that "Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan." In response to Obama's August 6 remarks regarding the media coverage of his speech, Tapper acknowledged in an August 7 post on his "Political Punch" blog that Obama did not use the word "invade" in the August 1 speech. In the blog post, Tapper reported that had emailed ABC News national security analyst Anthony H. Cordesman to determine whether "the media (and I) overstate[d] the case by using the term 'invade.' " Tapper wrote that Cordesman, "told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be considered an invasion." During the August 1 Good Morning America segment, an on-screen caption read: "Would Obama Invade Pakistan? Stronger Stance Than White House." As Media Matters for America has documented, President Bush has in fact said alternately within a five-day period in September 2006 that he would respect Pakistan's sovereignty and that he "absolutely" would go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan if necessary even over Pakistan's objections.
- On the August 5 edition of ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported that during the August 5 Republican presidential debate, there was "general scorn for the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama and his recent comments that he would meet with controversial foreign leaders and be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism." Berman's statement was rebroadcast on the August 6 edition of Good Morning America.
- On the August 1 edition of CBS Evening News, CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson asserted that during Obama's speech, he said he would "possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan."
- On the August 5 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer claimed that in Obama's speech, he said that "if he discovered there were high-value targets in that area, in what has become this safe haven, and Pakistan wasn't willing to do anything about it, he would invade Pakistan and do something about it." Schieffer then asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "What's your reaction to that?"
Major newspapers
- In an August 2 article on Obama's speech, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama said that "the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists."
- The New York Post reported August 2 that Obama "warned yesterday that he would use American forces to invade U.S. ally Pakistan if its leaders weren't doing enough to catch terrorists on their soil."
- An August 3 article in The Washington Times reported that during his speech, Obama "said he would invade an ally, Pakistan, if its leaders are not helpful enough in the war on terror."
- On the August 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke asserted that with regard to Pakistan, Obama's speech was "Bush-heavy." He continued: "This is willingness to invade another country."
- On the August 3 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson said that "Obama suggested we invade Pakistan, this week. He's a loser."
- On the August 4 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Kondracke said that Obama is "not ready for prime time" because he "declared that he might invade the territory of an ally, Pakistan."
- On the August 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity claimed that Obama "made a rookie mistake" by saying "I'll invade an ally." After co-host Alan Colmes noted that Obama "didn't really say it quite that way," Hannity asserted: "No, he actually did." Colmes replied, "He said that if we have actionable intelligence and Musharraf does not act, I will then take action." Colmes concluded: "[T]here's a little more nuance than I think has been presented in the media."
- On the August 2 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, former congressman and Win Without War national director Tom Andrews (D-ME) stated that Obama "said he would take action. What does that mean? Does that mean he's going to invade Pakistan? I don't think so." Host Tucker Carlson responded, "That's what he said. ... He's going to send troops. What's the difference between sending troops and invading? Umm, let's see, nothing."
Columns/editorials
- In his August 3 New York Post column, John Podhoretz wrote that in his August 1 speech, Obama "basically promised that, as president, he would invade Pakistan."
- In his August 3 column, New York Post D.C. bureau chief Charles Hurt reported that "in a prepared speech, Obama publicly threatened to invade Pakistan, a key -- and already teetering -- ally in the war on terror" [emphasis in original].He referred to this as a "diplo-disaster."
- In an August 13 editorial in The Weekly Standard, currently available online, editor William Kristol wrote that July "ended in retreat" for opponents of the Iraq war, in part because during his August 1 speech, "Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggest[ed] that he would invade Pakistan."
From Kurtz's August 8 Washington Post column:
Obama is now blaming the media, according to Politico:
"When Obama's big terrorism speech last week made headlines for its threat of military action in Pakistan, and won plaudits for its meatiness and detail, I wondered whether the main impression America would get from it would be that he's a fresh voice on foreign policy; or that he wants to invade Pakistan.
"Judging from two appearances in Western Iowa yesterday, the latter seems to have come across pretty clearly. Obama responded with criticism of the media, and an extended restatement of his five-part plan, after the second question, in Sioux City 'in regards to the invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan.'
"'The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up,' Obama said. 'I never called for an invasion of Pakistan.' "
I sure didn't see anyone reporting that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan. I read that he would be willing to conduct raids against al-Qaeda without necessarily getting permission from Pakistan's sovereign government. Mitt Romney did say, with great hyperbole, at Sunday's debate that Obama was going to "bomb our allies," but I don't think you can blame that on the press.
From the August 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: You know what's fascinating about this, and if we can get -- if we get Frank -- hang on, we'll hopefully get you back here. I think it's very interesting to me that Barack Obama, in my opinion, exposed his real inexperience here, though, last week.
It all started with the YouTube debate. The next day, [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] says he's naive and irresponsible on foreign affairs, because he'd sit down without preconditions with [Cuban President Fidel] Castro and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and [North Korean Leader] Kim Jong-Il, and fascinating to me, he's got to bolster up those credentials. In other words, he reacted to her, and then he came out with -- I think he made a novice mistake -- I'll invade an ally, which was foolish.
COLMES: Well, he didn't really say it quite that way, Sean.
HANNITY: No, he actually did.
COLMES: He said that if we have actionable intelligence and Musharraf does not act, I will then take action. He was not his - as [Former Gov. Mitt] Romney [R-MA] said, "I'm going to bomb them. I'm going to go after the ally." And there's a little more nuance than I think has been presented in the media.
From the August 6 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (guest host): We're gonna get to the frontrunner in Iowa in just a minute, that's Mitt Romney. But right now, but first, we're gonna go to ABC's John Berman for a wrap-up of the debate. He was out there in Iowa with us yesterday.
ROMNEY [video clip]: Thank you. Thank you again.
BERMAN: The candidates thundered through Iowa after their stormy morning debate. The Republican targets were wide and varied. A favorite was Democrat Barack Obama and his recent comments that he would meet with controversial foreign leaders and be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.
From the August 5 edition of ABC's World News Sunday:
BERMAN: When Romney first ran for office in 1994, he did take a pro-choice position, but now, he says, he is pro-life and sick of apologizing for his past.
ROMNEY [video clip]: And I get tired of people who are holier than thou, because they've been pro-life longer than I have.
BERMAN: There was general support for the troop surge in Iraq and general scorn for the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama and his recent comments that he would meet with controversial foreign leaders and be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.
From the August 5 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Obama said the other day one of the things that needs to be done, and that he would do were he the president, he said if he discovered there were high-value targets in that area, in what has become this safe haven, and Pakistan wasn't willing to do anything about it, he would invade Pakistan and do something about it. What's your reaction to that?
From the August 4 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
KONDRACKE: Welcome back to The Beltway Boys. Let's take a look at the "Ups and Downs" for the week. Down: Barack Obama. He's given more ammunition to critics who say that he's inexperienced in foreign policy. He made a big speech on terrorism this week, and here's part of it.
OBAMA [video clip]: Just because the president misrepresents our enemy does not mean that we do not have enemies. When I'm president, we will wage the war that has to be won.
KONDRACKE: That was the good news. I mean, he agrees with President Bush that the United States has terrorist enemies and that we've got to fight them. Where he showed that he's not ready for prime time is that he up front declared that he might invade the territory of an ally, Pakistan, which of course the president of Pakistan, Musharaff, denounced. And, you know, it's gonna make it all the harder to achieve what Obama says he wants, namely that Pakistan will develop according to a -- on a Democratic basis. And then he fumbled again when he ruled out that he would ever, ever use nuclear weapons under any circumstances involving people, involving civilians.
From the August 3 edition of Fox News' The Big Story:
GIBSON: Barack Obama suggested we invade Pakistan, this week. He's a loser.
KURT LONG (comedian): Yep. Yes, he is, not quite yet though, but I think he'll definitely be a loser in November, in about a year.
GIBSON: OK.
LONG: Yeah, I think that he'll be a definite loser, then.
From the August 2 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
ANDREWS: Tucker, again, I think you're right, Matt [Continetti, Weekly Standard staff writer]. What did he actually say? He said he would take action. What does that mean? Does that mean he's going to invade Pakistan? I don't think so.
CARLSON: That's what he said.
ANDREWS: He was going to invade Pakistan?
CARLSON: He's going to send troops. What's the difference between sending troops and invading? Umm, let's see, nothing.
From the August 1 edition of the CBS Evening News:
ATTKISSON: Today Senator Barack Obama presented an aggressive plan to fight the war on terror, one of the toughest from a Democratic candidate so far.
OBAMA [video clip]: I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists.
ATTKISSON: In a speech in Washington, Obama said as president he'd send two more brigades to Afghanistan and possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan, where Al Qaeda terror camps are up and running.
From the August 1 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
TAPPER: Good morning, Robin [Roberts, co-host]. Well, Senator Barack Obama will deliver a major address on terrorism this morning in Washington, D.C. And ABC News obtained some exclusive excerpts and comments that will no doubt be very controversial. Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan.
From the August 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
KONDRACKE: Yeah, that's what I was going to get to.
I mean, if you were the president of United States, and you knew that Osama bin Laden was in a certain place, and you couldn't get Musharraf to do something about it, you very well might order a commando raid, or a pinpoint bombing, to do something.
But to announce -- you're a candidate, up front, we do not respect the sovereignty of an allied country that we're trying to get to do the right thing, and we are going to announce right now that we're going to go violate that country's sovereignty, with whatever the consequences might be for that leader, Musharraf, is totally irresponsible.
And, you know, I can't believe that the Democratic electorate out there -- and this is unilateralism on his part. It's Bush -- he accuses Hillary Clinton of being Bush-lite. This is Bush-heavy. This is willingness to invade another country.
there you go, howard.
Musharaff is a military dictator who rules under martial law. He sits atop an unstable nation that is infested with religious zealots who sponsor terror in the worlds largest democracy--India. They overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister to get the form of govt they have today, which knowingly houses tribal forces who protect OBL.
Tell me why this man is a friend of the GOP? Anybody...take me to school. PLEASE.
I'm not an Obama fan, but I'll be danged if I'd stand up and take criticism for condemning anything thats going on in Pakistan. Fidel Castro is more benign that Musharaff and his regime...but I guess Fidel hasn't written any books?
Why the GOP love fest for dictators suddenly? No thanks....
So I take it that you, as a Democrat, would want Obama to make war on Pakistan, to get the terror crazies, cause they hate democracy? I get that impression.
We invaded a nation that was run by a dictator we propped up, who allowed Christianity to be practiced, and indeed, Husseins Foriegn Minister was a Christian.
Yet the GOP protect, coddle, defend and nearly worship Musharaff? Isn't he a dictator? Explain the Republican love for dictatorships suddenly? And Pakistan sponsors terror in a democracy.
If we get actionable knowldege that OBL is there and is protected...why do GOPers have to ask permission to get him? Obama is saying he won't ask permission. thats what i'm seeing anyway...
Wow. How can so many news groups have gotten this wrong is my first question?
Second question is a simpler one I think.
If Obama said that the news media had misrepresented what he said, why would Howard Kurtz dismiss Obama's allegations without checking them out first?
"Kurtz described Obama as "blaming the media" and responded: "I sure didn't see anyone reporting that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan."
This is the media critic saying this. Wouldn't any media critic who deserves what his bosses pay him try to check out the criticism of the media by someone like Obama BEFORE they dismiss that criticism as unfounded? Shouldn't he investigate first, like MMfA did, to see if that criticism is valid? What exactly is he paid to do if it isn't investigating the media's behavior?
Well I count 26 reports in the above, a staggering number. The noise machine at full blat. Kurtz dosn't get out much? See if he gets invited to the next WH koffee klatch.
Sounds like Kurtz was not watching the news this past week.
Nope- he was too busy watching the "Spongebob Squarepants" marathon on cable.....
Who cares!!!
Look what Obama's stupid comments did.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL16312820070808?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true
Obama's comments werent stupid. The rightwing SPIN of Obamas comments were stupid and of course you dont care. Facts, truth and reality mean nothing to you only the rightwing propaganda means anything to you. Thats just the kind of propaganda parrot you are.
Copious is right about one thing Obama's comments were stupid and irresponsible irregardless of any additional spin exagerating them. Pakistan is in a precarious politicalposition at the moment and publically making threats and usurping Musharifs'(sp?) authority could tilt the scale in a direction that would not be a direction we want Pakistan to go in. He showed the same lack of diplomacy that the Bush administration has shown with there "cowboy" threats.
Lost,
I have to disagree with you, if you read Obama's statement completely he is very thoughtful and is saying whatreally should be done.
Pakistan is no ally to us if what we are trying to do is find and capture/kill the terrorists that planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11.
Pakistan has hindered us all along but we have to play along with them because they have nuclear weapons. How else is Pakistan a strategic ally?
But Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan, and the US took it's troops away from the front line with the Taliban, where Al-Qaeda is sheltering. So it's we who have hindered the search for the 9-11 perps. Mushareff has gone out on a limb with some secularization schemes but CIA missile attacks on northern Pakistan and our blatantly racist invasion of Iraq has not gone over well amongst the people. There's also a low-intensity ethnic war going on in Baluchistan, the west of the country.
Don't blame Pakistan, the US is not handling this with any finesse or intelligence.
Lost,
I also have to say that propping up people like Musharraf is what has gotten the US into trouble every time. We need to let the people of pakistan decide who there "president" should be and then figure out if they are an ally or not and treat them accordingly.
Lot's of spelling mistakes in that last post, but I think you get my meaning.
Skeptical, First off I'm the last person to criticize anyone's spelling and grammer in a post. Mine are riddled with truly atrocious errors. I think it is a mistake to make policy based soley on capturing and killing terrorist. There is a bigger picture and I think this tunnel vision is part of the problem with the Bush administration's foreign policy. I also think it is unchecked hubris on our part to think we should force other's into our beliefs about democracy. Sometimes the devil you know is better then the one you don't. Personally, I think the US and the region was better off with Sadam in power in Iraq...not because I discount the atrocities he visited upon Iraqi's but because he kept a certain balance in the region between sunni and shia states. I also believe he was pretty well nutered as far as being a threat to the US or its interests by the first gulf war and the strikes during the clinton years. I've read some on Pakistan's situation politically and on Musharif (sp?)...by no means an expert...but from what I read I think there is a bigger risk in destabilizing his government. I see certain similarities in Lebanon and what has happened there. Sometimes these foreign leaders may not be what we would want or believe should be leading a nation but there are so many other factors to consider. This is my belief in how diplomacy and foreign policy works...I consider myself a realist...I think based on Obama's comments he is more an idealist and that is something I think makes for a good human being but a bad president of the US.
I disagree with you on this one. Obama is actually showing a great deal of insight into the problem despite what some are saying.
1. Obama apparently knows how important it is to get the guy behind 9-11. Terrorists should know that there is a price to pay for doing that. Right now, Osama's very existence emboldens would be terrorists.
2. Obama mentioning he is unafraid to perform operations in Pakistan makes it quite clear that Pakistan needs to do a better job getting Osama now for their own good.
3. Taking nuclear weapons off the table actually serves to remove inhibitions that might normally cause delay in carrying out operations. Obama has effectively nullified any real consideration of the MAD doctrine in this regard.
4. Obama is refocusing on what is important here. The rest of the world (and I bet Pakistanis as well) understands why the rest of us want Osama, the other countries of the world didn't get why we wanted Saddam.
5. Obama's remarks inocculate Pakistan for any operations. They now know it is likely coming.
6. It may make Osama do something stupid to tip his hand or leave the area in the event someone more serious becomes president. It may inspire increased communications from Osama (and/or those close to him) as well. The more active Osama is, the more chances we have to detect him.
7. Considering we have had zero results from the current administrations "activity" Obama is right to shake up the current situation. I am glad he is doing it. It is a truly briliant move even if most people don't seem able to appreciate it with all of the negative spin going on around it.
I don't think they were stupid. I agree Pakistan is in a precarious position and the Waziristan province isnt helping them one bit. Mushareff is a bad guy and a dictator who overthrew a democratic government. We cant just wait until THEY get things under control. Mushareff is afraid to go after the problems there. IF we get intelligence that points to terrorist training camps there we need to go after them. Not an invasion but we need to let countries know that we will attack such training camps. We dont have to tolerate those kind of threats. Pakistan needs to step up or we will have to do what we have to do. I think letting them KNOW is a good idea. I agree with Obama.
What your saying about if they can't do it we should go in and do it sounds very much like Israel's argument for why they went into Lebanon because there was a terrorist threat to Israel and the lebanese government wasn't taking care of the problem...of course the Labenese government didn't have the ability to take care of the problem they were in way to precarious a situation and lacked the muslce to do it. Look how well that turned out and look who is stronger then ever. As you know striking these camps isn't as easy as it sounds and more often then not we miss the terrorist and kill civiliians. Look at the situation from a different perspective: we have been unable (actually unwilling) to go after certain terrorist that Cuba has deemed a threat to their government ( I am not saying I agree with their characterization) so under your thinking it would be ok for Cuba if they discovered their location to come in and drop a bomb in the US on that location since we did not take care of the problem. I am not saying you don't ever make these strikes...sometimes the pros will outweigh the cons. I am not even saying we don't ever strike in Pakistan. But what I am saying is you do not go out and publically spout off these threats to a country that on its face is an ally. And a country that in my opinion is very percarious politically and very easily could fall into the hands of those that would be much worse for US security and interests. We have to loearn from past mistakes. Solon, I respect your opinions and I am not saying my position is absolute but I firmly believe that Obama made a huge mistake and one that I feel shows his inexperience.
I think Obama did the right thing. It is good for him to say such things on the campaign trail - before he is president - as a form of sabre rattling. It is a shot across the bow of Pakistan that we do not have confidence in their commitment to get Osama. They need to shape up.
Sure, the situation in Pakistan is tenuous. In such situations, the leadership there is compelled to do absolutely nothing about the problem. They need to be reminded that is not good enough.
We are not talking about a full scale invasion, just getting the guy behind 9-11. I believe it is our right to do so if they won't help us.
Accepting the status quo is the mistake here. I am glad to see Obama is smart enough to recognize that.
Hi Open. I suppose great minds can differ on what makes good policy (-; Seriously I think you are missing an important distinction in my position (probably that clarity problem I have rearing its annoying little head /-:) I am not saying you neccessarily do not take action although i think there are some serious cautions to weigh in that decision. My problem is with the diplomacy of the issue and how it should be handled both publically and privatley.There is a lot of work to be done by the next president to fix our international image and repair the serious diplomatic damage this administration has wrought. I think Obama making what in many minds around the world amounts to a threat against ANOTHER sovereign nation continues the diplomatic disaster of the current administration. I hope this cleared my position up a little...its not neccessarily about whether to take action or not it is about how it is handled diplomatically.
I guess I don't assess the diplomatic situation the same way you do. I believe Obama's remarks - if they are considered offensive by Pakistan, puts Pakistan in a position where they need to address what they are not getting done. Putting pressure on Pakistan does not hurt our position IMO - in fact, I think it will improve the situation.
I am not entirely opposed to conducting operations in a sovereign country. I would think if it was ever justified, it would be to get Osama. It is clear to me that Pakistan has run out of the benefit of the doubt regarding their cooperation considering the dirth of results.
Considering Musharef's handling of the AQ Kahn proliferation ring, intelligence leaks in his administration sympathetic to the Taliban and Musharef's previous refusal to help us get bin laden under the Clinton administration, I am not all that convinced Musharef is a sincere ally either. Maybe we should stop being so deferential on a diplomatic level.
A thoughtful take on the issue. The Cuba analogy was a good one. Of course I would NOT be talking about an invasion, nor a longterm bombing campaign over the entire country which is what Israel did an astonishingly shortsighted action. No, only taking out specific targets. All of the criticisms you make of this kind of action are good ones. I agree with them overall. I understand your problem with this. I am certainly not far from your position and am on unfamiliar ground defending this kind of action. Pakistan is one of the few countries I think this kind of rhetoric might do some good. The radical elements in Pakistan have power way beyond their numbers there. Every time they actually have a decent election they show very little support for radical parties yet Mushareff is loathe to take any action against them at all. I think he needs to do some balancing of his own. Certainly this could go either way. Perhaps your view of the situation is a better take and it WOULD cause the government to weaken or worse. Maybe sending him this kind of message is counterproductive. Or maybe it will bolster his spine and he will do something to reign the more radical elements in and the country will benifit. Certainly its not a simple situation.
CompliantConsent, shouldn't somebody with his own blog be able to properly post a link to a site that has nothing to do with his post?
BTW, I got my Ann Coulter email today,her column about the Baghdad Diarist, and CoprophagousDescent had one of the first comments there. Amazingly, he comes off as a combination of Gandalf and Socrates in the middle of that crowd.
And I don't think Obama's comments were exactly stupid, he may just be making the mistake that so many decent politicians do ,especially Dems, by not dumbing down his thoughts enough for the half of America that's a bit slower than the average American.
I hate to say it but you guys don't get it.
Barack's announcement that he would act if Musharraf won't simply re-stated Bush's own publicly announced policy and, amidst all the noise at the debate, Hillary said she agreed but wouldn't have said it out loud since she thinks the public shouldn't be informed in advance. Could she be more secretive than Bush?
Moreover, a number of experts challenged the Bush/Clinton/Dodd view on MSNBC today that Pakistan would fall into the hands of extremists if America did take action. They noted that the army is controlled by secularists and the public overwhelmingly supports a secular government.
The only thing to learn from this incident is that the many in the media are largely sheep who write what others write without doing their own simple research, like reading his speech. The only alternative reading of this is that the media is either biased towards Hillary or racist. I hope it's just that they are generally incompetent.
Still, given that it is Howard Kurtz's job to read what others are writing, it is amazing to me he would be so wrong but the facts are the facts. I urge everyone to write to him and urge him to take another look at this issue and start by reading what Media Matters has put together.
And still, I see very little mention of why Obama would talk about actionable intel in regards to Al Queda. Recently, there was a report that we had that type of intel about a meeting of high members of Al Queda in Pakistan. The current administration chose to do nothing. Obama was talking about the exact same situation and said he would have acted. And yet, some are ignoring these connections so much as to pretend that Obama and Bush actually have similar stances on this issue. Face facts, Obama was right. He did what all of the democratic candidates should be doing; talking about how this administration, this republican administration, not only dropped the ball, but dropped it every single time it was given to them. And sadly, our media covers for this administration. It covers to such a degree and in such horrible ways as to cause other countries to riot at something that was never even said. I dislike the age of "blame the media" we have been in for several decades, but in this case the finger of blame falls squarely on them.
Joe Biden has addressed this issue forcefully. He said that it is U.S. policy already that we DO NOT need permission from any country to strike a terrorist target that we consider a threat to U.S. interests. PERIOD. Now, in addition to that, Obama said "IF Musharraf won't act, we will". I know it's difficult for you Black and White thinkers, but implicit in that statement is that we would have already consulted with Musharraf and either asked for or demanded his help, and he's either unable or unwilling to act. In any case, current policy dictates that we have the right to take appropriate action. This does not necessarily mean invasion or bombing. It would certainly be incumbent upon the President to use this power judiciously, and not invade the WRONG COUNTRY as our current Numbnuts-in-Chief has done.
This is just ONE MORE phony controversy stirred ub by the GOP Propaganda Parrots and dutifully repeated by the MSM. It's all CRAP.
I think it is debatable whose thinking is black and white here. Its not about the actual action it is the fact that a presidential candidate came out and singaled out a sovereign nation to threaten...shades of the stupid "axis of evil" idiotic threat. This country is in trouble diplomatically with much of the international community. It is time to stop the "cowboy " threats and time to start working a little smarter.
Lost,
I think the problem here is that you are equating two very different things. The world doesn't appreciate Bush's actions because he didn't go after the proper targets. Had he charged into Pakistan after Bin Laden we would not be in the same predicament that we are now whether Musharraf was with us or against us. We would have had international support.
Now that Bush has completely screwed up in Iraq, the world is against us. Obama is focusing on the correct target and not acting like a cowboy. I believe thie type of action that he is advocating would be viewed upon favorably by the international community.
He is not calling Pakistan one of the axis of evil, he is stating that if they are harboring the terrorists that attcked us and they do not help us go after him then we will take unilateral action. I don't think that type of action is in any way comparable to what Bush has done.
Morning Skeptical. This may very well be a case of you and I (and others) do not agree on foreign policy and diplomacy. I also think we have to look at where we are now. The world is not going to forget just because Bush is out of office and a new president is in what the US has been up to these past few years or the threats made. Unfortunatley as a country we own what bush did as president. I agree with Clinton on this we have alot of cleaning up to do and alot of repair work. I support a candidate that understands that and understands the serious and diplomatic work ahead. Obama's comments show he does not share the same belief as I do therefore I support Clinton over Obama. This is how we make our voting decisions...on the issues...isn't it. But as I said previously to another poster if the democratic nominee is Obama I would certainly support him over the current crop of republicans put out there. I just am making a choice and pointing out the candidate I most agree with and pointing out when a candidate has said something I do not agree with. I think many of you have raised thoughtful counter-points defending Obama's statement and I don't totally disagree with some of them but it really hasn't altered my opinion that it was a bad move overall.
Well said, and I think you've raised some valid points. My objection, overall, is not to those who take issue with what Obama actually said...I think there's room for disagreement, as you've pointed out. What I find deplorable is the classic Straw Man erected by Romney and repeated by the Pavlovian Propaganda Parrots on the Right.
On this we agree. The Republicans and the media a obviously mischaracterizing and sensationalizing Obama's comments...which is contributing to the problem internationally. I do have to confess I haven't been listening to the Republicans and the television media as much as I use too...I tend to read more to get my information. I just can't stomache the silly and unimportant drivel they are spouting when the real issues are so serious. Personally, I feel the republicans and their pundits have become a characture and they aren't even playing in the same league as the democratic candidates.
Well, if you ever need your convictions recharged, just listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity for a half hour. They make me want to pull my hair out, but I force myself to check in once in a while just to remind myself of the mountain of ignorance we have to dislodge.
LOL. My husband has banned me from watching or listening to Hannity for fear I will crash the car or break the TV just to get him to shut-up.
Lostlogic,
I see that you believe many of Bush's policies will carry over onto Obama. I do believe Obama can get a fresh start with the world if he shows that he is willing to re-focus on what is really important. Everybody was behind us going into Afghanistan. I don't think many would object to us going into Pakistan for the specific purpose of bringing a criminal to justice.
Obama's remarks indicate to me a departure from the current policies of this president that frankly not many around the world agreed with nor understood with regards to Iraq.
If Obama focuses more on viewing this as a law enforcement situation, I think he will change our fortunes around the world. Where we lost much of the rest of the world was using our victimization on 9-11 as a general reason to declare war on everyone. I don't think Obama is doing that at all. It appears to be just the opposite. We are going after specific people for a specific reason that everyone can agree with and easily understand as opposed to Iraq.
In addition, I think many Conservatives have automatically rejected the more subtle "Law Enforcement" approach to fighting terrorists because the GOP Propaganda Parrots used it as a cudgel with which to flail John Kerry. Never mind that this method has been used successfully by many other countries, not to mention our own domestic efforts.
Abrams tanks are not the only tools available to us in this effort.
I agree that terrorism should primarily be handled as a law inforcement issue...I think you get the most effective results. I am not sure in the present framework and state of mind towards the US the international community will be as supportive as you do. There have been some interesting articles on what is going on in Afghanistan and the ill-will now turned towards the US even towards our actions there. There is an article today in the New York Times (I think NYT) linked to on Huffington Post that talks about the casualties being cause in our "quest to get one man" and the backlash it is creating among those who have become collateral damage (I hate that term). I think that much of this sentiment is increased due to our current reputation and actions internationally. I think we have to be very carefully in how we tread with Pakistan because any action could easily be seen as one more step towards siding with India in that "little" squirmish between the two. We have made some moves prompted by the Bush administration that have benefited India and slighted Pakistan...it would be wise in my opinion to tread carefully...it wouldn't be wise to appear to favor one over the other.
Whatever we do, I agree that the approach to fighting international terrorism will be complex and will require a many-pronged approach. I think any of the Democrats will be better at this than Bush. We must rebuild the trust and cooperation of the Muslim world, or we'll never win this fight. If we continue to "stay on offense" as Giuliani proposes, we'll just continue to swell the ranks of disaffected young radical Muslims who are willing to martyr themselves.
Even if we declared war on the Muslim world, as some seem to desire, we'd exhaust our military long before Al Qaeda runs out of fresh recruits. That is, unless we're willing to nuke the entire region. But then, the oil would be too contaminated to use, and that would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? We've got to put John Wayne back in the closet.
As the other posters here have said, you make some good points and offer sound advice. Although I have some areas of disagreement with you, I appreciate your intelligent posts and will continue to keep your points in mind. Glad to have you back posting again. Keep it up. You have a refreshing point of view that helps me see the issues more broadly - even when we disagree.
Thanks, right back at ya! (-: In the end this discussion highlights how complicated these decisions really are. We complain alot about our representatives in government but I for one don't envy them their position. I really can't imagine being directly responsible for deciding which of us has the right policy. There are so many tangential issues involved and such serious consequences. Its easy for me to opine when I don't have to make the actual decision in the end. I don't know if I could actually make that final decision the way they do. Their responsibility is awesome. I think in a broader way it is easier to pick those I believe capable of thinking through their actions then neccessarily demanding concrete positions in all situations. I think most of us can agree this administration lackes that skill.
That's an excellent observation. There's no guarantee that any of them will come up with the right solution, but we can at least hope that they'll carefully consider all options, and be willing to re-assess their position if things don't work out.
I think we've had enough of Bush's dyslexic myopia.
I agree that the law enforcement/intelligence strategy is the most effective. I also agree we have to be more careful how aggressive our actions appear than if we had rid Afghanistan of al Queda, helped rebuild Afghanistans infrastructure then left instead of invading Iraq. Your point about needing to be neutral in the India/Pakistan conflict is a very good one that is a flashpoint that could easily begin a nuclear war.
Lost,
I really wouldn't expect you to change your mind. I appreciate a good dialogue and you've made me at least think more about the subject.
I will agree that Obama may have been responding to pressure to appear more "tough", and we can debate whether that is smart or not. However, the reason he singled out Pakistan is that, according to intelligence, that is where Bin Ladin is hiding.
And, as Skeptical pointed out, even if we conducted air strikes or commando raids on Pakistan, it would be minor compared to the War Crimes of Puddinhead George.
Nerzog, I don't disagree that we may have to handle the situation in Pakistan...I just disagree on a diplomatic level with spouting off threats in the current situation. I am a firm believer that arm twisting is best done behind closed doors...it allows the otherside to save face with those he/she is answerable to. It also allows for the other side to concede with less backlash. Again this is my opinion on what I feel is the best way to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy...oddly enough Papa Bush was very good at this...too bad Baby Bush missed that lesson. I also agree with your postion on Bush...unfortunatley I think we have to take into account what he has done when acting in the near future.
I don't understand the position of the right wing squawking heads on this one.
It's already been stated as policy that we will go inside countries that harbor terorrists with or without their permission. We've already invaded Iraq, and attacked with Predator drones and Hellfire missiles in Yemen, and we've supported attacks in the Philipines with US 'advisors'. We've also threatened other countries with attacks if they don't cooperate.
The whole 'Bush Doctrine' is that we can attack anyone, anywhere, at any time. How can the right wing talkers now condemn Obama for saying something similar: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Are they that afraid that some East coast, quiche-eating, Volvo-driving, latte-sipping, tree-hugging, limp-wristed, peace-loving, Ivy league, God hating, New York Times reading liberal Francophile might steal some of their bluster by breaking out of the mold they created for him?
Actually, I think they are. This is nothing more than the Right Wing's Bullsh*t Factory executing a pre-emptive strike on Obama, just in case he wins the nomination. Should he happen to be the nominee, they will revisit this Straw Man ad nauseum. Limbaugh and Hannity will harp on it non stop, portraying Obama as some kind of inexperienced loose cannon. Hide and watch.
Kurtz said he's no one reporting that Obama wants to invade Pakistan. We should take him at his word. Do we know for a fact that Kurtz did not suffer from a fall or bad reaction to medication, and lapse into a coma for the past few days? . . . I'm glad MM picked up on this false reporting. I heard notone news agency put Obama's comments in contect with the question that was asked, or quote the entirety of his response.
The US Special Forces are already over the border of Pakistan. Been there for awhile.
There are other issues here regarding Pakistan that are getting ignored. Pakistan is one of the last friendships the US has in the Middle East. Check out this article on the Obama/Pakistan bombing issue. Economic ties MUST be stabilized.