On America's Election HQ, Ralph Peters made false statements about Obama's foreign policy
SUMMARY: On Fox News' America's Election HQ, Ralph Peters falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama has said that the United States "should send ground troops into Pakistan" and "invade the country through which we get our supplies." In fact, Obama did not say he would "invade" Pakistan; rather, he stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
During the July 15 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, columnist Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama has said that the United States "should send ground troops into Pakistan" and "invade the country through which we get our supplies." In fact, Obama has not said he would "invade" Pakistan. Rather, in his July 15 foreign policy speech Obama said: "We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like [Osama] bin Laden if we have them in our sights." Also, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama made any actions conditional, not definite, and he subsequently noted that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan."
Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances in which the media falsely claimed Obama said he would "invade" Pakistan.
Earlier in the Fox News segment, Peters also falsely asserted that Obama "call[ed] for" an "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq, but "now it's a 16-month timetable." In fact, Obama has long advocated withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in a process that could last 16 months. As Media Matters documented, in his September 12, 2007, speech in Clinton, Iowa, Obama called for a withdrawal of "one or two brigades each month" bringing all troops "out of Iraq by the end of next year."
From Obama's September 12, 2007, speech:
OBAMA: Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now.
We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
Obama repeated these comments in an October 12, 2007, speech in Des Moines, Iowa, saying, "I have a plan to remove one or two combat brigades a month so that we get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months."
Also, at a March 31 campaign event in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Obama outlined a 16-month time frame for withdrawal. From Obama's comments at the event (accessed via the Nexis database):
I was opposed to this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009.
We will do it carefully. We won't do it precipitously. We're going to have one to two brigades out per month. At that pace, it will take us about 16 months to get out.
Now, anybody who says that's a rush, you have to remember we've been in Iraq longer than World War I, World War II or the Civil War. Two years from now, that will have been seven years. This thing was supposed to take six months and cost us $50 billion.
From the July 15 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ:
HEATHER NAUERT (host): Let me ask you today -- Barack Obama gave a more -- major foreign policy speech. John McCain responded. But one of the things that Obama said today is that, basically, U.S. interests were hurt by the surge in Iraq. What do you think of that?
PETERS: I think that is absolutely nuts, and it betrays both the panic that's starting to set in, in the Obama camp, on military affairs and foreign policy because Iraq's going so well, and it also betrays his utter naiveté. But --
NAUERT: So, you think, because things are going pretty well in Iraq, he's saying, "Uh-oh, we've got to have something else to focus on and things aren't going as well in Afghanistan. So, now let's focus on that, say we took our eye off the ball."
PETERS: Yeah, well, certainly, in his calls for, you know, immediate withdrawal -- and now it's a 16-month timetable -- Barack Obama believes in Barack Obama. He doesn't want to be the guy that turned Iraq -- Iraq around the other way and led us into defeat. So, if he is elected, he'll do whatever it takes. He's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq.
But right now, he can't play the Iraq card, so he's trying very hard to play the Afghanistan card. And frankly, what he's saying about Afghanistan and Pakistan is loonier than anything he's said about Iraq. For instance, the idea that we should send ground troops into Pakistan -- look, our troops only get their supplies, their water, their food, their gasoline, their bullets, their spare parts through Pakistan. So, we're going to invade the country through which we get our supplies -- that means the routes closed. We can't resupply them --
NAUERT: Yeah. Well --
PETERS: -- by air, and you're forcing the Pakistani military to fight us. This is crazy.
NAUERT: A lot of messy issues involved in this one. And Colonel Peters, we're going to have to have you back to talk more about Pakistan and that whole issue there. We appreciate your joining us.
PETERS: My pleasure.
NAUERT: Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, have a good evening.
Col, it is so clear that FOX loves to lie. They are truly in a mission to misinform the average viewer. How clear could this be?
In fact, Obama did not say he would "invade" Pakistan; rather, he stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
Eddie,
I work with a guy [former Marine] that resembles a bull dog with a buzz cut who is pissed Bush hasn't invaded Iran.
He's just the type that would think invading Pakistan would be a jolly good idea ;-)
But only if Bush did it...or McCain.
I don't know why I'm even amazed anymore why these hosts on FOX [as well as others in the media] continue to repeat out & out lies.
Obama clearly stated he would target terrorists...not INVADE a country. Geez.
It's all a matter of opinion J. Obama's words were not clear.
Certainly what Obama was proposing was not invading as Germany invaded Poland in 1939, since the U.S. presumably would leave as soon as the capture or killing of the al Qaeda operatives was completed, and Pakistan would not be perceived as the enemy.
But I suspect Pakistan and the United Nations would consider such an operation technically an invasion, especially if it were conducted against Musharraf's wishes. And I suspect we would view it the same way if Pakistani forces flew into Dubuque, and either captured or killed high-level members of an anti-Pakistani militia. After all, it's considered an "invasion" of U.S. airspace when a plane encroaches on our territory.
Certainly sending in Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and CIA operatives with weapons and parachutes, shuttled in on a C-130 aircraft -- as would have happened in the 2005 operation Obama faulted the Bush administration for not carrying out (LINK)-- spelled out exactly the kind of military action Obama was talking about.
Is there a difference in terminology depending on the size of the force? The column that broke the news of this aborted op reported that "the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred with "various planners bulked up the force's size to provide security for the Special Operations forces." Said "the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning" of the operation, "The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan."
But this is precisely the mission Obama says he would have OKed
And I suspect we would view it the same way if Pakistani forces flew into Dubuque, and either captured or killed high-level members of an anti-Pakistani militia. After all, it's considered an "invasion" of U.S. airspace when a plane encroaches on our territory.
I think the questions the Pakistani's would have to ask themselves:
1. Why would an anti-Pakistani militia be hiding in Dubuque? Are they being assisted by locals in the area?
2. Does the U.S. have the means or motivation to capture and turn these people over to Pakistan?
If the U.S. couldn't help reign in the anti-Pakistani militia, and they continue to pose a threat to the state of Pakistan, I think that they would be justified in eliminating the threat themselves, don't you?
Th eproblem here is the image that these RW hacks are putting in the heads of their loyal sheep is one that resembles the INVASION of Iraq or the INVASION of Afganistan. The critical difference here is INTENT.
Capuring or killing terrorists IS NOT the same as toppling a government. And while Pakistan or the UN might see it "that way", it is less likely if civilian causualities are few to none, and we came out of there with OBL & AAZ in custody, leaving Al-Quaeda largly dismantled in our wake. I think the UN would applaud that. Plus it would make it easier for the Pakastani gov't to regain control of their territory along the border. (Which they DO NOT have cotrol of now.) So at the end of teh day, they would at worst grudgingly accept it as well.
You make some interesting hyptheticals, but I don;t think they're very realistic.
At the moment Pakistan is harbor ing terrorists. Either the gov't can't or wom't hand them over. If it's won't then why are they any differetn than the Taliban? If they can't, that's OK, just get out of the way while we do the job. No? Well then we're back to WON'T. (See question 1.)
"I have no argument with your points - however in the minds of many it still would be considered an invasion."
Like when we "invaded" Italy and kidnapped that suspected terrorist off their streets? Yeah, right.
Ya know, Demsol, with the Googles, it's pretty easy to catch you plagiarizing wingnuts. The tip-off is when your posts suddenly seem to be written much more clearly (if not much clearer in the idea department)
And boosting your stuff from Jake Tapper? at least aim high!
COL - I have posted that link before on simplar threads and I apologize to those who think I am claiming ownership of the words. However the thoughts are not exclusive to that particular writer. Obama said what he said, and if only "wingnuts" interpreted his words as invasion then I guess you need to include Joe Biden in that group as well.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama's threat misguided."The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."
"I guess you need to include Joe Biden in that group as well."
Well, no, you don't if you read Biden's full quote.
He does not describe it as an invasion, Biden doesn't use the word at all. Biden criticizes Obama only for announcing it, having also said, "it's a well-intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of thinking how you're going to conduct foreign policy."
Wrong again.
The status and and authority of a foreign government can be violated in numerous other ways aside from an invasion.
Tell that to the Pakastanis.
Pakistan, a key ally of the US in the war on terrorism, reacted angrily, advising all American politicians to refrain from inflammatory remarks. “These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring,” Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said. “Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility.”
Sorry - having trouble with links today.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece
Gladly, because it's true.
I'm not denying that targeting terrorists inside Pakistan would be a violation of sovereignty if the Pakistani government forbids it. It simply would not fit the definition of invasion, which is to enter as an enemy of the sovereign authority, often with the intent to conquer.
Tansin Aslam also did not use the word "invasion."
A couple of reminders will put it into perspective for your primitive train of thought:
Saddam Hussein's regime was the sovereign authority in Iraq and the target, thereby making Operation Iraqi Freedom, by definition, an invasion.
Al Qaeda is not the sovereign authority in Pakistan, but they are the target. If the Pakistani government forbids such action, it will be a violation of sovereignty, but not an invasion.
But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force's size to provide security for the Special Operations forces. "The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan," said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
This is the description of the operation Obama chastized the Bush administration for abandoning. Not everybody sees things that same way you do Pete. Deal with it.
"This is the description of the operation Obama chastized the Bush administration for abandoning."
Obama did not propose resurrecting this operation or anything that resembles it. You can deal with that fact as well.
Not that Dems_Sol had much credibility before - but he's lost any that he may have had. Good catch, Colonel!
Now, not only is he an idiot, he's a plagiarist!
Obama's words were not clear....But this is precisely the mission Obama says he would have OKed
Self-contradictory much?
Dems_Sol
Do you actually believe that post you made? Come on man, you're a pretty intelligent person.
...If you really think Obama said he "wants to invade Pakistan," then you need to double or triple your meds.
I believe the action Obama has claimed he would do, the action he critisized the Bush administration for abandoning, if done wiithout the assistance or approval of the Pakastani government, ammounts to an invasion.
Jeter, was the guy a war vet or just a guy who put in his time in the Marines?
I know a lot of people who feel the way this guys does. Some of them vets, but very few if any vets who've actually seen war first hand.
Most of the people who've experienced it are a little less willing to rattle a saber.
Maybe Ralph Peters just wants to protect his buddy, Osama bin Laden? He certainly doesn't seem interested in holding him accountable for 9/11. Too bad Bush's empty 'dead or alive' rhetoric was just grandstanding.
The man has since learned I'm sure, that there's no sensible reason at all, to speak hypothetically or speculatively or conditionally (if that, then this) about U.S. National Security, when speaking in public. Also, I hope that he and many other Democrats of national standing, are getting the idea that you don't have to give your opinion about anything and everything, just because someone asks you for it in public... especially when the media is asking. Democrats have for the longest time seemed so prone to this monumental misunderstanding, and seem so eager to reflexively give an opinion in public about anything they're asked... I can't remember specifically what goof gaffe it was that Gov. Richardson made on the campaign trail, when asked his opinion in public about homosexuality: I do remember when Bill Clinton had not the brains to evade or make up something clever or just refuse to answer the question of "boxers or briefs?" (I know that seems extraordinarily innocuous, but the inability to check oneself from answering embarrassing or personal questions in public, is still there, as it was for Mr. Richardson when he was asked whatever it was he was asked, and answered what it was he did, I don't specifically recall)...
When the media starts asking presidential candidates highly hypothetical and speculative questions about U.S. National Security in public (or even many kinds of National Security questions that contain no hypothesis or speculation at all), those candidates should look upon such questions as though they were asking for serious National Security matters to be divulged publicly... or they should act as though they were being asked an opinion about something, that only a fool would give in public: either way, you don't have to give an opinion in public, about anything and everything, just because you're asked... Democrats especially for a long time, don't seem to have understood this.
It's a shame when a military man such as col. Peters...
really dishonors himself and the uniform with these kinds of blatant lies. It's a sad day that American media has come to this.