Obama’s Threat To Pakistan: His Sister Souljah Moment?
Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama made huge ripples through the mainstream news media, new media blogs and in the political world with what was touted in advance as a major foreign policy address.
And, oh was it. But was it his Sister Souljah Moment? The Los Angeles Times:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is failing to do enough to stop terrorists.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said at the Woodrow Wilson Center here [in Washington, DC]. “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.”
The ostensible hard-line with Pakistan rapidly became the lead on talk shows, news reports, and weblogs (pro and con).
Obama laid out other steps aimed at combating terrorism. He said that while drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq, he would add at least two brigades to Afghanistan — about 5,000 troops — and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion, to $3 billion.
The first-term Illinois senator so far has highlighted his long-standing opposition to the Iraq war and his desire to end combat operations there, but he faces a challenge in trying to show voters he has the experience and temperament to be commander in chief. In recent days, his leading rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has charged that Obama’s declared willingness to meet without precondition with leaders of adversary nations, such as Iran and Syria, is “irresponsible and naive.”
But while Obama’s 40-minute speech repositioned him on combating terrorists — which voters now identify as their top concern — it also opened him up to potential criticism from liberal Democrats who have provided much of his primary-season support.
The LAT also has this notable quote:
Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, said that Obama previously had emphasized his opposition to the “unilateralism” of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. “It’s tough to criticize the Bush administration for unilateralism in Iraq, then say you’d be unilateral in Pakistan,” he said. “I’m wondering if some people are going to jump on him.”
And, indeed, the timing of the hard-hitting speech was interesting.
It came as a new poll showed Senator Hillary Clinton pulling ahead of Obama after the last CNN/You Tube debate and a tussle between Obama and Clinton over some of his remarks that Clinton called naive. Pundits from many parts of the world gave their take on why Clinton was pulling ahead.
Veteran conservative columnist Robert Novak, in his newsletter, had this to say about Obama’s standing after the debate:
The consensus among Democrats is that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) was the clear winner in the dispute with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) over meeting with foreign despots as President. It went to his greatest political weakness: his presumed inexperience compared with Clinton. Former President Bill Clinton’s intervention in the dispute keeps it in the news and ends it while she’s way ahead.
So was this Obama’s effort to take a tough stand that might risk part of a voting constituency to solidify his standing with another, bigger voting bloc? The LAT report says his aides deny it. But he certainly seemed to be hammering home the idea that he was tough enough to sit in the Oval Office:
In the speech, Obama at some points used the terminology of the Bush administration in describing the problem of terrorism. He said that terrorists “are at war with us” and are “seeking to create a repressive caliphate in the Muslim world.”
Yet he also declared that as president he would launch a new effort to reach out the Islamic world, which he said has come to view the United States as a hostile occupier.
In arguing that the United States should reserve the right to strike across the Pakistani border, Obama was taking a similar approach to the Bush administration. White House officials recently have said they wanted to preserve that option, a comment that drew a sharp reaction from the Pakistani government.
But in threatening to withhold aid, Obama was going further than the White House, which has opposed any aid reduction on grounds that the United States should not risk weakening a government with a nuclear arsenal that could be ousted by a radical Islamic leadership.
The White House immediately rejected Obama’s line on Pakistan. So did Republican Senator John McCain:
McCain said the situation in Pakistan is “very delicate,” since the country’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is an American ally with a tenuous hold on power. The Arizona senator said a direct American attack on the country could cause a backlash that might topple Musharraf.
“I think it’s kind of a simplistic view of a very complex situation,” McCain said at a press conference following an appearance at Stanford University. He advocated using covert action “before we declare that we’re going to bomb the daylights out of them.”
Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Senator Chris Dodd both called the comments “irresponsible.”
Opinion was diverse on weblogs, too.
My DD’s Jerome Armstrong writes that “for progressive Democrats that want a more peaceful leadership in the world shown by our next President, it fails the threshold of getting us out of picking fights in the mid-east, and discarding the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attacks. If a unilateral pre-emptive strategy of attacking a ‘target’ is the doctrine, then why isn’t Saudi Arabia, where Al Qaeda began and home to most of the 9/11 terrorists, also a potential target? The unilateral pre-emptive doctrine is profoundly un-american and anti-diplomatic in both its actions and ramifications.”
He adds:
The one thing this has done for Obama, is put him in the center, not Clinton, of the dialogue over what’s going to happen next in the middle-east, and everyone is going to be reacting to his positions. For Richardson, who also didn’t vote for the war, it’s an opening to become the one candidate who did not vote for sending troops into Iraq and will pull completely out. For Edwards, it’s an opportunity to further differentiate himself to the left of Obama. If this doesn’t give the opening that Bill Richardson and John Edwards were looking for to criticize Obama directly, I don’t know what does. Heck, even Clinton has the opportunity to move to the left of Obama over the issue of a the US launching a unilateral pre-emptive attack inside Pakistan. Because if Pakistan is game, why isn’t Saudi Arabia as well?
Stephen Green, aka Vodka Pundit:
Let me get this straight. Obama thinks the US can’t handle Iraq, but would do just fine invading a friendly-ish country with double the land area and six times the population? Much as it pains me to agree with Hillary Clinton, “naive” is the word that comes to my mind, too.
This is controversial? In a time when so many David Broder-types bemoan the lack of bipartisanship in foreign policy, isn’t this something that the majority of Americans can agree with? How different is it from this?
THE Bush Administration is not ruling out direct assaults on al-Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan, one of its closest allies in the fight against terrorism.
….That said, I’ve had a chance to look at the entire Obama speech, and I suggest others read it as well. It’s provocative and also right on the money for the most part. The most interesting passage is this:
Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Read the post in full.
And Andrew Sullivan sees the speech as Obama’s “JFK Strategy” and writes, in part:
Outflanking Bush-Cheney with a serious, aggressive, intelligent campaign against Islamist terror? It’s what the country wants. And it seems to be what Obama is offering. He manages to decouple the war in Iraq from the broader war on Islamist terror…..This is the speech of a potential president.”
And, indeed, several things can be deduced from Obama’s speech:
(1) No matter what happens in 2008, Obama is a key contender in the Democratic Party.
(2) The day started with the dominant political clip being Bill Clinton defending his wife. It ended with news of the speech and reaction to it.
(3) Obama essentially “took on” Pakistan so it’ll be harder for him to be painted by Clinton or Republican foes (if he runs for President or Vice President) as weak on national security.
(4) Some pundits and progressive talker Ed Schultz have been arguing repeatedly that the Democrats can’t count on just being the anti-Bush to capture the White House in 2008, they must convince the public they are as tough as the Republicans (only more competent).
(5) Look for the Clinton-Obama skirmish to intensify.
(6) The downside for Obama is that other key portions of his speech (FULL TEXT IS HERE) got edged out in coverage over his comments about Pakistan. In fact, he detailed quite well how the White House and Republican strategists politicized the terrorism issue.
33 Responses to “Obama’s Threat To Pakistan: His Sister Souljah Moment?”
It doesn’t much matter, because THIS center-left Democrat already knows that she cannot support Barack Obama for President.
OOPS!
I guess that Senator Obama is no Colin Powell. Why repeat the mistakes that occurred in the planning for Iraq. Why not instead implement the Powell Doctrine by answering the following questions:
1. Will we go in without United Nations Approval?
2. Would Obama go to Congress and get advice and consent before starting the operation.
3. What is the goal/mission statement? How is success defined?
4. How is failure defined and what level of failure will cause the U.S. to withdraw?
5. Will overwhelming force be used to ensure a quick, decisive victory?
6. If military leaders say that it is beyond the current capability of the U.S. military, will he listen to them?
Also, the following political questions need to be answered:
1. Will the children of Democrats join the military to support this? How will the Obama Administration avoid the phrase chickenhawk?
2. What domestic initiatives would the Obama adminsitration give up to invade Pakistan?
3. Will the Obama administration be being to implement a draft to ensure that enough forces exist to invade Pakistan and that the forces are of the proper diversity?
My main wonder was why we all run off to ask Clinton, Dodd, McCain, and the White House what they thought of his speech. Every single one of them has a major reason to criticize anything and everything Obama says. If Clinton particularly thinks that she is moving ahead because of a perceived weakness with Obama over foreign diplomacy, it would be extraordinary for her to say anything other than “irresponsible” or “weak” or whatever. I’d much rather know 1) what do the experts who do not have a horse in the race think? 2) where did this speech come from; i.e., who are the advisors? Only after we find out if the ideas are decent ones or not am I interested in what all the other candidates think.
The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.
Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:
Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.
Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:
Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.
Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:
At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR
I was against the Iraq war all the way, but for taking out Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I can’t find anything wrong with taking this into consideration, if all other means fail. Of course, only under the premise that a competent team is running the action (this rules out Bush, Cheney and their bunch of jerks).
:-/
Notice how the propoganda piece posted by jb1125 fails to mention if any future Obama Administration would go to the United States before launching military operatios in a sovereign nation, that negotiations with Pakistan is not mentioned, how this action would not be considered an act of war, how the mission is not defined, and last, now success or failure will be defined.
Of course, it an attack in Pakistan causes their to be daily car bombings in Islamabad or Karachi, increase AQ activist, and causes more U. S. allies to abandon th U.S., I wonder if Democratic Senators like Senator Kerry will be on television every night saying that the Obama Administration needs to find a new strategy instead of continuing the failed attacks in Pakistan? some how I doubt it.
Gray…even “Bush, Cheney and their bunch of jerks” hesitated at launching covert action in Pakistan.
Rumsfeld had far superior covert forces, intelligence and equipment than Carter did in his Desert One fiasco, yet Rumsfeld – who all you liberals love to demonize as insane and incompetent – balked a covert forces strike in Pakistan.
Pakistan has more people than Iran, a bigger and better equipped armed forces, a more radicalized population, and nukes.
And there is this howler in Obama’s speech – a sop to the loony liberals – that folks seem to have ignored:
“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.”
You all mock Bush for his unrealistic talk of promoting democracy in the Muslim world…but Obama wants to do this in Pakistan – the country is barely governable by all estimates – yet Obama believes he can make it a democracy?
I await the debate on Darfur, and the Democrats falling over themselves to commit divisions for this liberal cause de jour…in a land-locked country, with no clear supply lines, with a hostile Muslim government willing to commit genocide.
It has been pretty simple to snipe at Bush from the sidelines, but when Democrats are challenged for their alternatives (anyone recall Murtha’s senile “redeployment to Okinawa” plan) one can see why the party has been weak on national defense for generations (as witness the Congressional leadership trying to spike the bill protecting Americans who report suspicious flyers).
“Gray…even “Bush, Cheney and their bunch of jerks†hesitated at launching covert action in Pakistan.”
Sure. It would be a political desaster for them, damaging their own ally. And large scale operations would need a withdrawal from Iraq as a prerequisite to free up the troops needed. Note, however, that nobody, neither Bush nor Obama, is talking about an invasion. The point is to hunt down Al Quaeda in those renegade provinces that Musharaf can’t control anymore, NOT to take over the whole country (which would be quite impossible to do, imho).
Btw, I have to say, while I’m a bit irritated about the lively discussion on this nobrainer (my opinion), I find the sudden inflation of mind reading experts really amusing.
For further reading, here’s an interesting column by former US intelligence official A.J. Rosmiller at the A-blog:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/08/obama-gets-it.html
Gray, you are ignoring Obama’s little “democracy in Pakistan” grenade. Yah, it is a sop to the liberal interventionist-only-for-humanitarian-”no blood for oil” part of the Democratic party, but it is still completely nuts. Even Bush ain’t pushing Pakistan on that score, and you think Bush is starkers.
BushCo. has authorized limited Predator strikes in northern Pakistan, but “hunting” AQ ain’t as simple as Cheney taking out a lawyer…the way you are making it seem. AQ is heavily armed, and sheltered amid a highly hostile and more heavily armed population.
Recall your “Black Hawk Down”. This is not a matter of a couple of Delta operators in the darkness.
“Hunting” would be a major op requiring significant air support. Obama says he is willing to do this regardless of Pakistan’s support or opposition.
That would open a huge can of worms, the Europeans would run away, and the Muslim world would be raging (it is anyway, but even more so).
So uh, did anyone actually read the whole speech at all? Because basically he goes on about how Iraq is bad for a while, then says he’d send more troops to Afghanistan and that most of Al Qaeda/Taliban is still in Pakistan and we should work with Pakistan to get them, that they shouldn’t be given a free ride and that he’d be willing to attack high value targets. Oh yeah, that was two sentences.
Then he spends a good five to six paragraphs about how we need to work globally, which to him means less direct intervention and more support to all countries (primarily anti-terrorist, but also focusing on education as an alternative to madrassas). This includes setting up an international clearinghouse for intelligence (I think that’s what he meant) instead of making everyone give stuff to us.
There is a lot to criticize about his plan (especially the overly idealistic and disturbingly similar democracy for all parts), but very little of what I’ve read is accurately reflecting the speech at all.
In context that sentence seems completely like a jab a Bush for the 2005 non-strike and not a cornerstone of anything. It was a throw away, which again you can criticize for being stupid, but it seems wholly inaccurate to focus on. I could be wrong, but we’ll see in future speeches.
This might not have much to do with Musharraf either. He is supposed to step down in October and it seems like everyone is against him now. I would be surprised if he makes it to Nov. 08 to be honest and if he falls we may have to go in. I think the only legit wars we’ve ever fought have been Afghanistan, WWII and probably the Civil…I’m even on the fence about the Revolutionary War, but having a nuclear armed country run by the ISI (Pakistani intelligence that helped Taliban to victory and probably has been hiding Al Qaeda figures) is too much for me. Again, it’s a mixed bag. On one hand this is stupid because it could hurt Musharraf who will be seen even more as an American pawn, but on the other hand it will set up Obama as the leading “this is how we’re going to deal with Pakistan, I’ve been thinking about it the most” if Musharraf goes down and they become the new #1 threat.
How many folks have actually read the whole document? It’s actually a strikingly bold statement and has to be considered in full. The Pakistan bit is actually must less provocative in context; it is only marginally different from current US policy as even Heritage Foundation analysts agree. The real juice is the part about combined civilian/military teams that bring the best of diplomacy together with military might to encourage pro-Western values in the Muslim world. Instead of the Bushian attack against the foreign service, Obama would use State as a central player in advancing US interests. But he would break down some of the bureaucratic barriers between State and Defense in order to act more judiciously and efficiently.
There’s a LOT to chew on in the overall speech. The Pakistan reference is far from the most noteworthy element in it. Taken alone and out of context it looks like a foolish venture; of course, invading Pakistan would be a disaster. But that’s not what Obama is saying. The moderate thing to do would be to reject the straw men and go after the whole speech.
“That would open a huge can of worms”
Where was this reluctance to “open a huge can of worms” in the run up to the Iraq war? It’s not the handling of some worms that is the foremost problem, firstly it’s the proper assessment which can is the right one that’s harboring the enemy. Afghanistan: Right can. Iraq: Totally wrong can. Western border province of Pakistan: Check content.
“The moderate thing to do would be to reject the straw men and go after the whole speech.”
Indeed, Elrod! Words of wisdom, folks.
Elrod you normally are on top of this sort of stuff. I have yet to read anyone that has pointed out that Musharraf is not supposed to be in power much longer and reading some of the Pakistani papers I don’t think he will be. It looks like either he will be forced to step down or order a full military clamp down that I don’t think they’d support. Have you read any analysis/suggestions about this at all?
I agree with Gray- we should have been pressuring Musharaf harder to act against the Western border province of Pakistan. Iraq was just a costly distraction that had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, of course, we are faced with the impossibility of dealing with a war on 3 fronts- Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, if Musharaf is unsuccessful. BTW, if you believe Musharaf, he was threatened with invasion by the US State Dept after 9/11- so I’m not sure how delicately this has been handled.
Elrod said: “The moderate thing to do would be to reject the straw men and go after the whole speech.”
Mikkel said: “There is a lot to criticize about his plan (especially the overly idealistic and disturbingly similar democracy for all parts…
Elrod, you are right. Not many folks are noticing the Neo-Wilsonian aspect of this, as Mikkel pointed out…that can be explosive in the Muslim world…given that almost all the major players there seem to regard democracy as a plague.
“…but having a nuclear armed country run by the ISI (Pakistani intelligence that helped Taliban to victory and probably has been hiding Al Qaeda figures) is too much for me.”
I have to give Obama credit for raising this issue. Pakistan is a nightmare in waiting. Probably the most rational solution is Bush’s (monitor/occasional Predator strikes/lean on the Pak gov occasionally with a high level visit/wait to see if India & Pakistan will nuke each other over Kashmir and remove the problem from Western concerns).
But when even your hated ChimpCo. balks at military action in a theatre…that should give all liberals reason to pause.
Gray said: “Where was this reluctance to “open a huge can of worms†in the run up to the Iraq war?”
A big reason Bush invaded Iraq was that it was the “low hanging fruit” on the tree of the Axis of Evil.
Iraq had a degraded military. We had ample experience there. It was near water, so allowed for carrier access. Allies were immediate adjacent for a staging area. And…I will say it again…NO NUKES.
If you are convinced Iraq is a disaster, what would violating Pak sovereignty lead to? National humiliation certainly…the deposition of the government…what would take its place?
Marlowe I do think on its face Obama’s Neo-Wilsonian talking points are different than the neocons. For instance, no where did he say that democracy was a goal for democracy’s sake (no talk about how democracies naturally are the best) but in fact highlighted that our type was the way to go.
That part was grounded in two aspects: we reclaim our moral authority and becoming the City on the Hill again to the rest of the world, and we use bottom-up measures to try and spread our culture and way of thought. It seems to be a lot more similar to how we approached the Soviet bloc (which has gone pretty well IMO).
It’s naive to think this will work in the Middle East, because as it stands Islam is broken there. I think it has a better shot in many African countries though, and also in places like Indonesia and Malaysia which arguably have a similar threat potential as most Middle East countries. I said “disturbing” because the rhetoric isn’t refined enough and could make countries pull away because it is too much like the neocon venture (also it is disturbing because Obama might get full of himself and try to go the fast route. In general my main concern with him is that while I agree with a lot of his ideas, they are 20+ year ventures and would be disastrous as 8 year ones.) but functionally it is a lot different and more reasoned.
Looking at the entire speech,
1. No mention of the United Nations. I guess this really confirms the right wing belief that the United Nations is some place to go if you really do not want anything done.
2. No mention of Congress. I guess when the Democrats control all facets of the government, there will be no more need for oversight.
3. He used the phrase “ending the war in Iraq†when he meant ending the participation of the U.S. in hostilities in Iraq. There is a huge difference.
4. He pulled the two brigades as a proper additional force size out of his ass. What if the Joint Staff and the CENTCOM commander says no? Will he try to conduct military operations from the White House like Jimmy Carter?
5. Senator Obama would conduct military operations in a country without a declaration of war and without diplomatic negotiations. I wonder if Congress will conduct any oversight? Doubt it.
6. Senator Obama makes the naïve argument that if you put proper people in charge, then the intelligence community will change its culture. The last few years should convince everyone otherwise.
7. Senator Obama talks about negotiations but when he wants action he avoids the subject.
8. Senator Obama also talks about nation building and democratizing the world. Have we not learned our lesson yet on this topic?
9. I also love the part concerning a new jobs program for liberal arts majors who want to travel the world.
10. I also like the top down command structure. Does Senator Obama really want to nationalize all emergency services personnel?
I completely agree with Obama on this, assuming he truly believes what he is saying and would act on it should he become president.
Hillary and Edwards both agree with Obama
So Hillary is calling Obama irresponsible for something she agrees with. And the media is letting her get away with it.
Oops, the second quote was Edwards, as I was illustrating that he agrees as well.
“A big reason Bush invaded Iraq was that it was the “low hanging fruit†on the tree of the Axis of Evil.”
Of course you have a point ehre, Marlowe, but this reminds me of an old joke (maybe the younger ones here don’t know it):
A police officer on his night patrol stumbles across a drunk old man who is crawöing around a street lantern.
“What are you doing there, sir, why don’t you go home?”
“Why, I’,m lookin for my keysh of coursh. Losht ‘em.”
Ok, the officer is a nice guy so he get’s down on his knees and searches the pavement. Nothing!
“You sure you lost them here?”
“Nonshense! I losht ‘em in da park, but dare itsh mutsh too dark to look for dem!
Yup, indeed, why hunt Al Quaeda in Pakistan when it’s much easier and more political convenient to hunt for them in Saddam’s Iraq!
“A big reason Bush invaded Iraq was that it was the “low hanging fruit†on the tree of the Axis of Evil.”
Of course you have a point here, Marlowe. This reminds me of an old joke (maybe the younger ones here don’t know it):
A police officer on his night patrol stumbles across a drunk old man who is crawling around a street lantern.
“What are you doing there, sir, why don’t you go home?”
“Why, I’,m lookin for my keysh of coursh. Losht ‘em.”
Ok, the officer is a nice guy so he get’s down on his knees and searches the pavement. Nothing!
“You sure you lost them here?”
“Nonshense! I losht ‘em in da park, but dare itsh mush too darg to look for dem!”
Yup, indeed, why go after Al Quaeda in Pakistan when it’s easier and more political convenient to invade Iraq!
Oops, sry for double post, connection problems. Pls note I used the timeout to correct some errors!
The joke is only apt if you ignore that we weren’t ‘looking for keys’ though, Gray. Keys are stationary objects, terrorists are not.
Ok, C, so the drunk old man isn’t looking for his keys, but for his turtle!
Now, seriously, if a bunch of terrorists during 6 years time managed only to move from the center of Afghanistan to the western part of Pakistan, this doesn’t strike me as extremly fast moving nor overly dynamic!
Corrected version (for C and all animal huggers):
A police officer on his night patrol stumbles across a drunk old man who is tumbling up and down a broadly lit street, shouting “Oh my darling, oh my darling, oh my darling, Clementine!”
“What are you doing here, Sir, why don’t you go home?”
“Why, I’,m lookin for my turtle, of coursh. Ran away, da shtupid thing”
Ok, the officer is a nice guy so he searches the surroundings, looking for the creepy animal. Nothing!
“How long is it gone?”
“About ten minutesh!”
The cop searches in a wider radius, but finally comes to the conclusion that it’s quite improbable that a turtle would have gone this far in such short a time.
“You sure you lost it here?”
“Nonshense! I loshtit in da park, but dare itsh mutsh too dark to look forit!”
I seem to rememeber the whole world comming to an agreement about alQaeda when they met at the UN back in 2001. To harbour them by sitting on your ass when you know damn well they are there is complicitcy by laziness.
Musharaff is a disaster anyways, politically, economically, and legally within his own country even without our “help”. He made the move for nukes, and should have been viewed as a pariah instead of some kind of an ally to begin with. He’s our flavour of dictator, a bad one thats why the government of fools we have coddles him. He is no better than the rulers of Saudia Arabia that one moment look friendly, but as soon as they leave the room laugh their heads off at us.
This is a rare moment…..I agree with Obama, and by doing so agree with Laura LOL.
Time for Delta Force ops, has been ticking since 2002, and Rummy was an idiot for not using them.
Delta Force ops wouldn’t be any more successful than any other military force in that region, Pyst. The only way we’ll ever get OBL is if someone gives him up, period. Though I do keep hoping that one day we’ll wake up and see a headline that these guys have tracked him down.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Politics / 2008 Elections / Foreign Affairs / War / Iraq / War On Terror / Democrats / George W. Bush / Barack Obama / Terrorism / Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama made huge ripples through the mainstream news media, new media blogs Learn More About [...]