USA Today editorial revived false claim that Obama "said he'd invade" Pakistan
SUMMARY: A USA Today editorial falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "provoked needless controversy in Pakistan when he said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not." In fact, Obama did not say he would "invade" Pakistan; rather, he said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
A January 28 USA Today editorial that purported to list Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's (IL) "rookie mistakes on the campaign trail" concerning "international affairs" falsely claimed that Obama "provoked needless controversy in Pakistan when he said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not." In fact, Obama did not say he would "invade" Pakistan. Rather, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, he said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama subsequently noted that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan."
Moreover, in an August 7, 2007, blog entry, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that he 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' " in their reports about Obama's statement. Tapper wrote that Cordesman "told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be considered an invasion."
From the January 28 USA Today editorial, titled "Obama's rhetoric soars, but what does his record suggest?":
On international affairs, while in Illinois, Obama wisely opposed the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. But he has very little foreign policy experience, and rookie mistakes on the campaign trail suggest a potentially risky lack of sophistication at a time when that's indispensable. He seemed naive when he implied he'd meet with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions. He provoked needless controversy in Pakistan when he said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not. And he fumbled a question about whether it would be right to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan, suggesting he didn't understand the subtle way in which presidents have to maintain ambiguity about nuclear warfare, no matter their real intentions.
No the USA Today is going to attempt to smear Obama. These media types will not stop with the lies and distortions and taking things out of context.
"He provoked needless controversy in Pakistan when he said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not."
Maybe it's just me...but I agreed with Obama's Pakistan remark. Bush should have put his foot down with Musharaf from the get-go and insisted on sending troops across the border to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan was, in effect, harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Besides, the area of Pakistan in question is an autonomous region, is it not? Musharaf, himself, can't even exercise control there.
The tribal border region is a lawless breeding ground for terror. Al Qaeda and the Taliban's influence is even outwardly prevalent in Peshewar, the city marking the Pakastani gateway to the Kyber Pass.
But nevermind that, Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.
To some extent yes. Just like if someone dropped bombs in my neighborhood, I'd feel that we were invaded.
I'm not rebuking Obama's position, or Israel's. I'm simply saying that by his comments, Obama meant either bomb or send in the troops. And in either case, an invasion of pakistan would occur.
Would you rather he NOT take any action if he were President?
Here's the thing. What you keep forgetting is that we have some of the best special forces soldiers in the world, whose primary job it is, is to go into situations like these, quietly, and without anyone knowing anything about it, and taking out targets such as these. I'm certain that there were more incursions into many countries in times past, and in times future that will happen, that we won't know about. The bombs get the big press, but the small teams taking out small groups of terrorists is what really needs to happen, especially in areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani government really holds no rule of law at all. Also, bear in mind pre 9/11, Pakistan were thick as thieves with the Taliban, and some assert that they are still hiding them away, therefore, hiding terrorists as well.
We, under George W. Bush, have already launched a few dozen cruise missiles into Pakistan, and we took out a few terrorists, and also a bunch of civilians. It wouldn't be the first time. We would not be invading the country, but acting on intelligence that is good. I would expect Obama, and any other President for that matter, to act on this intelligence if it were good, and as they say, actionable. It appears that you have an issue with taking out some terrorists, which must mean in wing-nut-land, that you are a terrorist sympathizer, and are therefore un-Patriotic, and un-American. I don't really mean that, but this is how liberals were, and are painted regularly when we talk about not wanting to invade Iraq. Now the tables could be turned, no?
Or is it only OK to invade countries and maybe send in troops when there is a republican in the White House? Because, you know, you guys are good with that military stuff, allegedly. I seem to remember so much outcry from republicans when Clinton sent troops and bombed targets in Kosovo.
I don't understand your confusion.
MediaMatters is pointing out that the US Today made a false claim: USAToday wrote Obama "said he'd invade to chase terrorists if the Pakistanis did not."
That's not what he said.
There's quite a difference between "we will invade to chase terrorists" and "if he doesn't act, we will."
"The bombs get the big press, but the small teams taking out small groups of terrorists is what really needs to happen, especially in areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani government really holds no rule of law at all."
Let me try to understand this. You are suggesting that the US invade a country with our military simply because the government has no control over it's people? No, that's can't be it, must be you are suggesting the US send troops in where terrorists are known to be gathering? And, your reasoning is because the country can't control the terrorists? No, that can't be it, must be your reasoning is because the terrorists pose a danger to peace in the US? Maybe they pose a danger to peace around the world?
How is that different than our position in Iraq, right now?? So, you want to open up a 3rd front and deplete our forces even more? Or, are you thinking we should leave Iraq and attack Pakistan? But, I guess since "we would not be invading the country, but acting on intelligence that is good" then all would be ok? After all, our intelligence has gotten SO much better than pre-Iraq, hasn't it. Maybe because a democrat would be acting on the intelligence then that would make it 'better intelligence'?
"Now the tables could be turned, no? "
And that justifies....what? Killing innocent people? Destroying personal property? Oh... I get it. The democrats are jealous because the republicans have a war, so now they think it'll be ok if they start one. As long as they use the same reasoning the republicans used then the republicans can't complain about it. Do you really think the democrats (and liberals) would support your war (started and maintained for the same reason as Iraq) ? I sure hope not, otherwise they are the biggest bunch of hypocritical whining weasels there are!!
"I seem to remember so much outcry from republicans when Clinton sent troops and bombed targets in Kosovo."
You mean they targetted hospitals and schools? I thought they hit them by mistake. Whew, I'm glad I've been set straight on that one! Good job, Bill, we sure showed those rotten Kosovoans!!
"How is that different than our position in Iraq, right now??"
Do you not remember the 935 lies in two years to push us into war? Into a country where a secular military dictator was keeping another dictator in check by not revealing that he didn't have nuclear weapons? Where Bush, even as early as 1999, talked of his eventual plans to invade Iraq?
Pakistan is a very, very complicated country, to be sure, but Musharraf is supposedly an ally in the war on terror. Why would he not allow U.S. troops in? He needs those terrorists outed as much as we do, or else they threaten to overthrow him.
I hope you do realize that we might as well have invaded Mexico, that is how much Iraq was involved in the war on terror.
But now, we have two fronts in this war. What to do about Iraq? Sadly, I don't think anyone knows, which is a huge problem that Bush has decided to just pass off to the next President. He has even left out funding for the war in the budget, so that that will be the first thing the next President will have to deal with.
And the war on terror? We have largely given up on it. Bush even admitted to not "spending that much time" on finding Osama Bin Laden. Are you kidding me??
</rant>
"Do you not remember the 935 lies in two years to push us into war?" , "Where Bush, even as early as 1999, talked of his eventual plans to invade Iraq?" , "And the war on terror? We have largely given up on it."
I could have reposted your entire post, but I don't think that would have been appreciated. It's sad when your entire arguement is strictly formed from left-wingnut talking-pundit regurgitations. When you parrot nutcase opinions like that, it only reduces the strength of your arguement. It would have been so much better if you'd just given your opinion, but nooo, you had to mimick what every left-wingnut is told to spout off with. I would welcome another attempt at a reply, but it wouldn't be of any use, now. You have lost credibility and I think you have no individual mind. That's the problem with many, they simply write what is expected of them and rarely expend any real thought to the subject.
Perhaps that's why Barack is in this position, now. Because he says what is expected to be said and isn't thinking for himself.
We'll wait, if you want to look some stuff up.
When everyone knows the earth is round, then....yes, you must back up your suggestion that it isn't.
But, he didn't say the earth was round!! He claimed there are 935 "lies" and in 99 bush planned the invasion and that the war is over.
If I had said Slick willy planned his attack in Kosovo as early as 1985, and had lied 810 times leading up to his attack on Kosovo and that Bill didn't even try to capture OBL, I would be expected to have proof. YOU would not be expected to have proof I was wrong!
So, prove Bush "lied" those 935 times (leave opinion out of it). Prove Bush planned the invasion in '99. Prove the we have given up in the war! As I thought, you can't prove lies, and you can't prove he planned the invasion in '99, and you can't prove we've given up in the war! ALL opinions! When opinions become facts then he (and you) will have a point, not until then.
You know it's true.
This is yet one more "controversy" fabricated by the GOP flying monkey liars.
Too bad he didn't say that. Now he should be seen as a "hawk" by liberals. Obviously, he supports a "pre-strike" theory of military strategy. Isn't that the same theory used by Bush? How does that fit into your 'against the war on terror' mentality?
I wonder how the left-wingnuts will support his military options as given to the American public? Seems pretty strange to me that he would be so adamantly against 'going into Iraq', but so much in favor of violating any other country's privacy. I think I would consider that a MAJOR flip flop on the war on terrorism.
To be frank with all of you, these types of statements by Obama are one of the main reasons I don't support him. The man is lacking in experience, never talks about the issues on the campaign trail, and from reading his website, I see a lot of expensive proposals with no financial backing, and a lot of ideas that run center-right politically.
The One thing that Obama is good at is vocabulary. The man can deliver a speech. That the speech will actually SAY something is irrelevant. When he paints himself into a corner (the Reagan comments, this comment, etc), he'll proudly stand on the fence and proclaim what he did NOT say, along the lines of "While I said something that a reasonable individual would equate to invading Pakistan, I never actually said we'd INVADE Pakistan" or "While praising Reagan and the Republicans, I wasn't actually praising them".
Methinks the expectations of Obama as an actual president are much too low. We've been stuck with ABB (Anybody But Bush) syndrome for so long, that we are buying into Obama when there doesn't seem to be much there. Personally, I am an Edwards supporter, and I wish more endorsements would come his way, but I feel that many of the endorsements Obama is getting are more the result of Clinton fatigue, and not Obama support per se.
Seven years ago we had a wet behind the ears Washington outsider who wanted to bring "change" and spoke in vague manners that he wrote off as us misunderstanding him. I don't want another one of those.