Barack Obama Vows To Kill Bin Laden, Conservatives (and Some Liberals) Cry Foul

[NYCGirl]

Oliver Willis in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-willis/barack-obama-vows-to-kill_b_58765.html

-snipped-

For articulating this common sense, basic position, Senator Obama is being attacked from the right and left.

The right's position, as usual, is not less intellectually honest. The same group of people who support and continue to support the misguided and morally wreckless invasion and occupation of Iraq are all of a sudden aghast at an endorsement of common sense military force because it happens to be advocated by a Democrat. Obama said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Wow, that crazy bastard. They support Bush's ill-fated "surge" but not the killing of terrorists. Why? Because a Democrat said it. They've taken this opportunity to claim Obama wants to invade Pakistan, but he didn't say that. He said he wanted to kill terrorists. Why is the right against killing terrorists? Just because George W. Bush has repeatedly let Osama Bin Laden slip through our hands (like at Tora Bora), that's no reason to get huffy when a Democratic candidate refuses to follow in those footsteps.

On the left, the critique is at least rooted in something resembling honesty, but it's almost as ridiculous. At least one pundit on the left, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD says that Sen. Obama supports unilateral war on the middle east with this speech - but Sen. Obama said no such thing! Again, the Senator is simply echoing the concerns of the vast majority of Americans in that he will actually follow through on the post-9/11 rhetoric to bring Bin Laden and his ilk to justice. If we have to cross Pakistan's border to kill Bin Laden, so be it.

Sen. Obama proposed a common sense foreign policy alternative to the Bush doctrine of terrorist appeasement. This should be cheered, not derided.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/

[Progressive Friend]

1. Osama bin Laden did Reagan's bidding in the 1980s

Could that possibly be why the Republicans are not very interested in killing him???

[Cha]

6. AND there's this..

"David Zephyr (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-31-07 09:21 PM
Original message
George W. Bush Will Never Go After Osama bin Laden.
Why? The B&B Company is Why.

The fact that Osama bin Laden --- who planned and executed the attacks of September 11th, 2001, murdering three thousand people --- is still not even a target of the President of the United States some six long years later should tell everyone in this country one thing: George W. Bush has no intention of ever capturing or bringing him to justice. And why is that? Because the Bin Ladens and the Bush Families have been business partners for over 50 years now. In fact, we might as well call it the B&B Company, because that's what it truly is!

LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON, LIKE GRANDSON:

In the middle of the last century, a young George Herbert Walker Bush, the son of Prescott Bush, found early on that pimping cheap Arabian oil against his fellow Texan oilmen had both its political and financial rewards. Indeed, it was Bush's relationship with his new found Arabian oil buddies that eventually cost him his bid to for the U.S. Senate from Texas after Senator Lloyd Bentsen exposed Bush's undercutting Texas oil men with cheap Arabian crude. Sure, Bush may have lost his shot at the Senate, but what did that really matter? The grease of money from his new Arabian friends, dictators and business tycoons, more than compensated for his loss to Bentsen."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1483333

[UrbScotty]

114. Didn't stop them from wanting Saddam killed

[Hippo_Tron]

121. Saddam was a threat to Saudi dominance of the Middle East

[killbotfactory]

2. Obama is a fool! We are not supposed to capture Bin Laden!

He's supposed to be used as a boogeyman to whip up the public whenever the president needs a distraction for something!

[Cha]

3. Speeches can

get distorted and twisted around to make a rival seem like a frothing madman when he's the sane one.

I hope Obama uses this to furthur attack bush's non-existent plan in Iraq.

If we had a free press..Americans wouldn't be soooo confused.

[durrrty libby]

4. Well Dodd and Biden are not backing him. Are they confused?

[Grandrose]

7. Would you?

Running for President and at the back of the pack? Yeah...agree and give your rival a boost!:rofl:

[jillan]

13. You don't think that Musharraf would just sit there while Obama announces to the world

that we are coming to get them?

Give me a break!
Obama scares me.

[Exultant Democracy]

37. Well Musharraf knows that he has political problems routing The Qaeda

for the most part because he has zero control over the northern warlords, but also because his is a Muslim nation. So for him it would be a win win, he would get to be all upset about his borders being violated (for public rhetoric reasons), cash in another huge check from the US (because they do in fact need the buckets of money that we give them), and smile as we take care of his Qaeda problem.

[durrrty libby]

18. Glad to see it is funny to attack a country that has nuclear capabilities

The fact that Obama has no creative, non weapon ideas, shows what an

inexperienced and foolish fellow he is. :scared: :scared: :scared:

[TwilightGardener]

20. Attack a country, or simply cross the border to take out OBL on reliable intelligence--

something that Chimpy should have done years ago--you're badly mischaracterizing what he said, and you know it. Hillary would do the same thing, guarantee it.

[durrrty libby]

29. "simply cross the border" You think Pakistan will believe that?

Pakistan has already called BO irresponsible

[TwilightGardener]

34. Musharraf won't do it. He's in a bad spot as it is. He may turn a blind eye,

out of political necessity. The US has been pressuring him to act on AQ for some time. This may have to be one of those quiet "just do it" situations, without Musharraf's PUBLIC cooperation. Really, it should have already been done, in 2001 or 2002.

[earthlover]

76. Well, then, they don't think Hillary or Edwards or Biden are responsible either!

Hey, haven't you heard? Hillary, Edwards and Biden support Obama. And you are still bashing. Please don't bash Democrats. It might help the Republicans.

[Telly Savalas]

96. Senator Clinton doesn't stoop as low as her groupies.

[earthlover]

75. Well, heart-throb, Hillary came up with the same idea...AFTER Obama!

So much for her creativity.

Enjoy.

[Laurab]

77. "No creative, non weapon ideas"?

Did you even read what he said? I could have sworn diplomacy was in there, along with sanctions, and having studied Obama a bit, I know that he has many creative ideas. He is also a believer in a form of government in which he talks to both parties, takes every point of view, and uses them to form his decisions. Sort of like Bill Clinton did.

The fact that you back Hillary is no secret, but the Obama bashing really borders on the ridiculous.

[Buck Rabbit]

11. Actually, Biden said it was his own "secret" plan.

Biden said that is what he would do all along, just in secret.

[CTyankee]

107. Clinton was after Bin Laden secretly for a long time. He issued an order to kill

Bin Laden and almost got him. He was persuaded to issue the order on the advice of Al Gore!

[TwilightGardener]

12. Who the hell backs a rival? They're jealous, anyway--I just heard Biden

on Hardball whining that Obama stole all his ideas.

[jillan]

24. Biden wasn't whining.

Biden was explaining that everything Obama talked about was either law or already debated on the senate floor.

It also explained how dangerous is it to announce that you are going to invade a country.

[beachmom]

30. Obama never said he was "invading a country". That is a distortion.

Why can't we have a serious policy discussion about Pakistan? We've been played as FOOLS for nearly 6 years. Are we just going to continue on the same road of folly where we give the Pakistani government billions of dollars and in exchange they sign AGREEMENTS with al Qaeda not to bother them? I'm glad Obama came out this strongly, AND that it got a reaction from the Pakistani government. I think this is an opportunity for us to really talk about our policy toward Pakistan.

Please read this very insightful post by WilliamPitt (who is NOT an Obama supporter):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1488436

P.S. -- I like Joe Biden (heard an interview with him on NPR today). He's just not my top choice for president.

[TwilightGardener]

31. To cross the border ONLY to take out selected terror targets is hardly

a full-scale invasion of another country. Joe himself said he would do it, just wouldn't say he would do it. That's his choice. Obama is talking about it as a last resort, not his first plan when he takes office--right now it's all it's hypothetical, and there's no harm in candidates discussing how we should handle this issue--in fact, I prefer it.

[sandnsea]

42. Aaargh, Pirhana please please

why? Tell me why you wanna go and say stuff you know isn't true???

[jillan]

60. Are you calling me a liar?

What exactly did I say that you think I am lying about?

On edit - here are Biden's comments

At today's National Press Club luncheon designed to promote his newly-published memoir, "Promises to Keep," Sen. Joe Biden characterized Sen. Barack Obama's pledge to hunt down terrorists in Pakistan as old news, noting that he had been proposing such action for "five years." Asked if Obama's speech this a.m. was a good idea or showed the junior senator's inexperience in foreign policy, Biden said: "Yes." Asked again, Biden elaborated, saying "I've been proposing we pursue al Qaeda in Pakistan for five years." Biden went on to say that the "last thing you want to do" is announce to the people of Pakistan that you're going to violate their sovereignty. He said such action would force Pakistani Pres. Pervez Musharraf to make deals with various factions. Biden noted as POTUS you simply take action.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/08/biden_no_fan_of.html

If Kerry would have won, Biden would have been his SOS. So maybe you should stop insulting Biden's foreign policy expertise.
After all, Kerry approves.

Don't ever call me a liar again.

[sandnsea]

66. He never said he'd invade any country

and I know you know it. Don't disappoint me like this.

I heard Biden on Hardball, he was complimentary of Obama's speech and said most of it he had previously recommended.

Why get in the middle of this spat? Biden has nothing to gain from it.

[Inuca]

83. Agree, Biden was not whining

he was quite gracious in his comments. But, if I remember it correctly, when he referred to the "we are going to do it" part he simply said (with a smile) that it might not be such a good idea to advertise this in advance. Not too much of a criticism IMHP, since Musharaff, not being an idiot, has figured out this possibility on his own.

[Cha]

40. Dunno..they're running

against him..that's all I need to know.

[earthlover]

73. Biden, Hillary and Edwards agree with Obama. You are confused....again, heart-throb

[Grandrose]

5. Wow!

Thanks for the post and thank you Oliver Willis for being honest and fair!:think: :kick:

[Skip Intro]

8. Yes, let's destabalize a nuclear power and leave control in the hands of radicals.

And let's tell them we're going to do it.

And for goodness sake, let's use the term "9*11" repeatedly. Don't want to leave that out.

[Ethelk2044]

33. Clinton Supporters are for letting the Killers of 911 Go

[Perry Logan]

43. Clinton gave orders to the CIA to have Osama bin Laden killed in 1996.

[Skip Intro]

71. That's realy over the top.

[earthlover]

78. Naw...they are so uninformed that they don't know that Hillary supports Obama on this

Why is it? ARe the Hillary supporters some sort of cult? And they don't even know that their leader hasnt drunk the kook aid?

[Skip Intro]

97. You say far more about yourself with that kinda bs than you do anyone else.

You throw 9*11 around like a pro. What are you accusing me of, again?

Letting the 9*11 killers go? Really.

The depth of such a moronic accusation escaped me the first time I read it.

[Tellurian]

9. Lovely, just as I thought. Obama has no intentions of ending the War and bringing the troops home!

[NYCGirl]

17. And did you miss this from the speech?

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3419106&mesg_id=3419106

[Tellurian]

19. I don't want an inexperienced warmonger playing politic with troops lives..

while he's on his ego trip du jour!

[Forkboy]

27. I'm with you.I like my warmongers to know what they're doing!

[Ethelk2044]

74. Then you do not want Hillary CNN showed her saying the same thing

[earthlover]

80. So why did Hillary agree with Obama?

[laugle]

110. The guy is getting scary now!!

The first thing I thought of was his Bush/Cheney lite comment about Hillary, what an irony.......

After what will have been 8 years of killing and wars, the last thing people want is more of the same!

[zulchzulu]

22. Heh. Now that's funny coming from a fan of a pro-war candidate

Surely you didn't read the speech about redeploying out of Iraq...

[Tellurian]

70. If you believe any words out of that shark's mouth..

you deserve what you get...in this case...another table!

[earthlover]

81. Well...Hillary not only believed the words out of his mouth...she agreed!

So are you willing to state your views of Hillary now? Or just blather about your political foes?

[Ethelk2044]

36. He is for fighting the right war Not Iraq Osama Attacked us oh I forgot

You are willing to let the killers of 911 get away. That's right we should fight in Iraq, people who did not attack us is better than those who did.

[earthlover]

79. Literacy is a good thing....find it!

[laugle]

111. You are sooo right,

LOL.....it's useless....

[laugle]

112. EL.....I tried to send

you a PM, but couldn't. What's up with that.....it was just a little funny.........

[Inuca]

85. I just hope that Hillary is not as shallow

(not to mention silly) as some of her supporters here, she may win after all....

[JANdad]

10. Basically telling the leader of a foreign

nation....fuck you, if you can't do it we will, does not in my book rise to the level of a statesman...imho...

[killbotfactory]

14. If they are incapable of going after Al-Qaeda

they should let us do it.

Otherwise they are only protecting a lethal terrorist network.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Isn't that what your candidate co-sponsored in 2002?

Except that was a real invasion, and this is a trumped-up media misrepresentation (hint: surgical strike at terror group does not equal invasion of country; just ask Bill Clinton).

[NYCGirl]

68. Edwards agrees with Obama:

NBC's Lauren Appelbaum reports that Edwards, on the other hand, agreed with Obama, though admitted he didn't watch the speech or see a transcript.

"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/300839.aspx

[earthlover]

82. Well, basically, Edwards agrees with Obama, not you! So does Hillary and Biden

Wow. None of the rise to the level of statesmen/women. Such a shame.

[SaveElmer]

16. Intellectually dishonest...

Minimizing the impact of any military action in Pakistan...and announcing your intention to do it ahead of time...give Pakistani extremists a year and a half to get ready...

Exactly the kind of disregard for the nature of politics and religious division in the region that George Bush employed going into Iraq...

[killbotfactory]

21. Your candidate already announced her intention to go into Pakistan

[SaveElmer]

25. If you are talking about this...

http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/27/top8.htm

No she didn't

[killbotfactory]

28. Oh, golly

"US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said if America sends its troops to the tribal region, they should go with Pakistani troops and not on their own."

For a minute there I thought she said she would be willing to go into Pakistan.

[SaveElmer]

32. And what do you suppose the odds are tha Pakistan will agree...

To a joint military operation in their country...Zero...

The problem with Obama's statement is not the fact of using military action, its the macho disregard for the situation in Pakistan...

If by some miracle, Musharraf agreed to a joint military action, it would be because he believed the situation was stable enough to permit such an action...a condition Obama does not seem to care about...

[killbotfactory]

39. So Hillary won't go after Al-Qaeda

because it would put a dictator in an uncomfortable position.

[SaveElmer]

46. A very Obama like answer...

Devoid of context...and btw, false...

Of course Hillary in the very article I posted has laid out a scenario that takes into account the very situation that Obamaa cares nothing about, and has the added benefit of getting the job done...

Second, a military invasion into a country like Pakistan, who by the way is an ally at the present time, particularly without permission, would do more than make a dictator uncomfortable, it would at the very least lose us an ally in the region (such as they are), and could very possibly destabilize the government to the point where Pakistani militants gain a significant measure of power...a very bad situation for a country with nuclear weapons...

[killbotfactory]

57. Honestly, there is no pleasing you

Is going after Al-Qaeda a good or bad thing? Should we let Pakistan protect them while they plot further acts of terrorism against this country? Would Hillary or any other candidate let them get away with it? Do you really think no actions will be taken by Obama in order to try and prevent such a scenario?

Do you really believe that Al-Qaeda was totally unaware that we want to go after them and haven't planned for that event until Obama's speech?

[SaveElmer]

63. Again...an answer devoid of context...

Or nuance...either we bomb them or we don't is not the question...read Hillary's position...it is informed by a knowledge of the situation there...and to emphasize your intention to violate another countries sovereignty is absolutely foolhardy...

Pakistan is a powder keg, if we go mucking around there without without any regard for the political and social situation it will produce consequences far worse then not getting bin Laden...

[killbotfactory]

69. So Hillary will not go after terrorists in Pakistan, without permission?

[earthlover]

91. That was Hillary's position last week. TODAY she agrees with OBama

You can always count on Hillary to disappoint....

[earthlover]

88. So WHY did Hillary ....TODAY....agree with Obama?

Does Hillary change her mind a lot?

[sandnsea]

44. She needs the dreaded "permission slip"???

Do you have any idea how stupid her position is, if this is what she's saying?? Of course she will go after high value targets. She'd be equated to Kucinich and Gravel if she said she'd wait for Pakistani PERMISSION.

[SaveElmer]

47. So Obama has gone over...

To the same position Bush took in Iraq...interesting...

[sandnsea]

49. Afghanistan IS NOT Iraq

Would Hillary need permission to go after Bin Laden? Is that her policy?

Do you really think this is a fight you ought to pick, after losing the last one so badly?

Hint. He's rising among MEN right now. He'll worry about the ladies after he has raked all the male vote he can get. Men don't want to wait around for permission when fighting terrorists.

[SaveElmer]

50. So you believe then...

The U.S. has the complete right, to drop troops into Pakistan, violating the sovereignty of an ally at will? Is that your position...?

[sandnsea]

51. Does Hillary need a permission slip?

To go after Bin Laden in Pakistan? Is that her position?

[SaveElmer]

55. Answer the question...

Do you believe that the U.S. has the right to drop troops into Pakistan, a sovereign country and ally last I looked, without their cooperation...?

I believe it would be foolish in the extreme to drop troops into Pakistan without the cooperation of Pakistan...

And to announce such an intention in a political speech is more boneheaded than any of his previous missteps...

[sandnsea]

56. So Hillary DOES need a permission slip

Got it. And yes to your question, the US has the right to drop troops into any country in the world to get an individual who has attacked our country at least 4 times, and declared war on us. Anybody who says any different will NEVER be elected.

Pandering to the left on these issues is never a good idea. This is the kind of triangulating that lost us more and more of the country in the 90's. It's why Hillary won't win, in the end.

[SaveElmer]

59. Got it..you subscribe to the Bush doctrine of preemptive war...

A very popular position I imagine...

[sandnsea]

61. A covert troop operation

is not war. But nice try.

[SaveElmer]

64. Yeah...real covert...announcing it in a political speech...

And if you think any military action in Iraq would long be covert you are fooling yourself...

[sandnsea]

67. Afghan-Pakistan border is not spelled i-r-a-q

Or is this a geography handicap you're exhbiting?

[earthlover]

99. Hillary agreed with Obama....and she announced it....she wasn't covert either!

[sandnsea]

62. We've been attacked FOUR times, nothing preemptive

about going after the people who attacked us.

[SaveElmer]

65. With a complete disregard for the consequences of that action...nt

[earthlover]

92. And so has Hillary, Edwards, Biden? Wow!

I thought you supported Hillary! ARe you now turning against her, how that she is AGAIN taking the same position as Bush?

[earthlover]

93. Actually, that is not fair...Bush's policy was to punish Iraq and ignore bin laden....

which of course was a point Obama made today. Hillary didn't say much about THAT! HA!

[earthlover]

87. oh please...what she said last week has nothing to do with what she said today!

Remember, it is Hillary. Not someone who is consistent. Today, she agreed with Obama, after the fact. Last week it was another story.

I will put Hillary's quote from last week on my favorites. I always enjoy a chuckle.

FLIP....FLOP!!!!!

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

23. Why should this be surprising.

All the Democrats are going to talk tough and talk about "kickin' ass". Obama's no different..

If we really want to kill bin Laden, the American people should never even know about the intention to do so.

[Cha]

45. I'm glad Obama is

bringing it out in the light from where it's been gathering dust for the last 6 years.

Bust 'em Obama!

[earthlover]

84. Intellectually dishonest? So why did Hillary agree with this? Is she intellectually dishonest?

[Inuca]

90. I am NOT an Obama supporter, BUT

if you can listen to this speech and think for a single second to compare it to Bush ON ANY LEVEL... well... I am trying to stay relatively polite... Of course, this would imply actually LISTENINIG, not only looking for possible sound bites that can be distorted. Agree or disagree with the MANY issues raised and brilliantly analyzed in this speech, but it cannot be denied that the speech was outstanding.

[Hippo_Tron]

104. The Pakistani extremeists can be ready all they want

The SEALS will be in and out before they can blink.

[Connie_Corleone]

26. Why are people acting like he's going to overthrow the Pakistani government?

The objective is to take out the AQ leadership, not overthrow the government and do nation building.

Bill Clinton did this several times in Afghanistan when he was president.

Obama is saying he'll take out the AQ leadership with or without Musharraf's help.

I've never seen so much Henny Penny wailing before.

[CGowen]

35. How do you kill dead people? Let's stop supporting Al-Qaeda related groups in Pakistan n/t

[LiberalFighter]

38. If it is with permission of Pakistan... fine

If they don't give permission then stop all aid to Pakistan.

[PATRICK]

41. Exactly the Kerry position

which curiously the media succeeded in ignoring. This time however this is an attempt to cripple a Dem rival to Clinton or at least keep the "feud" going. It is not just the Obama contextual slant but the media's own context that needs fair scrutiny.

Overall this is the best side of the Kerry campaign revisited. The big deal is the aid and comfort Obama critics are giving to the RW blowhards playing us like fools. Obama's mistake is not using this to confront the media itself in some way that would pin those tools and cowards down. An insurgent campaign gives Obama more credibility in my book. If you are going to choose the way you are going to lose this is better than the race to the cringing falsehoods of the downward spiraling status quo. What I hope Obama learns is where the slant PR garbage is coming from and who backs it up.

It has been noted the strange characteristic of Edwards' supporters to defend other candidates. If they are true Dems and are subject to the same assaults by bad forces it is part of the makeup of ideals we see in and bring to our candidate's campaign. If he is not the eventual nominee we still want the same things and hope to expect it from good candidates and their principled supporters.

Another thing I would revived from the kerry campaign along with other ideals he labors in the Senate to achieve over the influence of "centrist" Dems is to get our oily fingers off of Iraqi oil. That statement also passed into deep media silence and is still one of the many important things they will avoid unless they get to cherry pick some phrase or quote to use an important issue to actually distract the nation from the issue itself!

[beachmom]

53. Tora Bora, Part Deux? To be fair, Kerry has not said this about Pakistan,

but he is the chairman of the subcommittee on Pakistan, and it would do everyone some good to calm the hell down and read up on what is going on in Pakistan. I don't think Musharraf is going to be around that much longer, so everyone shouldn't act like he's going to protect the Bomb from the religious zealots when he'll be gone soon.

Read Kerry's opening statement on Pakistan:

http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/7/25/jk-chairing-sfrc-hearings-on-pakistan#comments

He sounded VERY concerned about Pakistan. I doubt he'll say anything about Obama's speech, however, since he has been smart to stay OUT of the primary wars.

[Inuca]

94. I think that the whole hearing

is available on the CSPAN site if anyone is interested. Very interesting and worrysome discussion.

[jefferson_dem]

48. Thanks for offering much-needed perspective.

Regardless of the reflexive hand-wringing exercises here on DU, Obama's vision is reasonable and right...

[rhombus]

52. Great post from Oliver!

We need to finish the job of ukilling Osama and his minions who are still hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

[Nimrod2005]

54. I support Obama on this one! K

[AtomicKitten]

58. Bravo!

Good post NYCGirl!

:hi:

K&R

[NYCGirl]

95. Oliver Willis just says it plain and simply.

Hi, AK!


:hi:

[Ethelk2044]

72. Great Speech

[Colobo]

86. VIVA OBAMA!

[maximusveritas]

89. The problem is the media distorted what he said and gullible bloggers fell for it

Sadly, this is becoming a recurring pattern.
The media, specifically the AP, has taken Obama out of context or completely distorted his words on multiple occasions. This is only the latest example.
And there are always a few gullible people to fall for their crap. Of course, the type of people gullible enough to fall for it also tend to be the people stubborn enough to make up new reasons to justify their original opinion. It's quite pitiful.
I wish Media Matters would do a report on the AP's distortion of Obama's message. It's getting out of control.

[TeamJordan23]

98. Great piece. I agree with everything in this. nm

[MethuenProgressive]

100. About time Obama said *something* Presidential.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.... There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

Good words.

[Martin Eden]

101. Playing with Fire

US military action in Pakistan could further weaken the current government's grip on power in a country with a large fundamentalist Islamic population and a nuclear arsenal. The potential fallout from such an incursion could far outweigh the supposed benefit to US security from capturing/killing Osama bin Laden.

Before stating he will embark on this high-risk operation, Barack Obama really needs to weigh the potential consequences vs the threat actually posed by al Qaeda leadership hiding in the mountainous Afghan/Pakistan border region. Maybe he has, but I see thius as more of a bid for establishing some "tough on terror" credentials.

[PATRICK]

102. The substance

of our discussion at least raises all the points despite the crayon markings of the MSM maliciously applied.

Besides the political moment that frankly Obama should be seeking as a rookie trapped by a lot of barriers and attitutdes.... Well, heck, what about the politics? If he is going to actually win in the primaries he has to break out of the sleepy restraints. Toeing the line so far has brought him up against a manistream wall that sooner or later would have to be dealt with and so far has been a constant subtext against him. Just as the "black" issue is just there so too is the very inhibiting "lack of experience" meme, and well, the name blending with Osama and Hussein as stupid as that is. Being perceived as having made a gaffe or being uninformed is a frustrating risk in a news environment that REFUSES to discuss the incredibly alarming Bushco policy.

But he did it on the only terms he could to make the point for breaking out of the quagmire of "experience" on both sides of the aisle. He did it by using and plagiarizing the plagiarist rival Biden with a decisiveness that eventually would have to signal to any nation harboring a leading active enemy of the US that we mean business. Clinton just rammed missiles into Afghanistan in an unannounced act that failed, but that was Afghanistan. Bush tiptoed around Bin Laden even when the gang was within reach and the relationships with Pakistan- which practically has a new blackout to match our closing of the special group to seek him out- have all the earmarks of conspirators trying to cover each others' political behind. Pakistan generally goes after groups under pretext of being helpful, but the politics is local, concentrated on other motives and hamstrung by those considerations. Bush did set the tone that the was not going to be serious in the pursuit of Bin Laden- doing just the opposite than Obama, waffling, and getting away with it. What presumption of wisdom or national interests is there in the current administration's loving and murky(development of nukes) treatment of Enemy Refuge #1? Why do they bluff and bluster when it suits them when no one believes they mean it?

Generally, Obama wants to stake out again, as Kerry and recently Biden have done, a real policy bite and clear intention concerning what the so-called war on terror is really about, wants to assume the mantle of being the one people can turn to for real change an decisiveness. Just as this is a political signal to America more than Pakistan, so too any handwringing wisdom and complex foreign policy speculations- or comfortable silence- makes America and Pakistan both doubt whether we mean to change anything. Of course he is smart enough to handle the real foreign policy issue when it has actually to be played out. And more determined than Bush people who care ONLY, exclusively, to do things to their own benefit and profit, to actually protect and benefit the nation.

It does not matter whether the bold assertion of a mere candidate aggravates the discussion of the experience issue so long as he confronts it and succeeds in bypassing the MSM and convincing people he will cut the crap. What appears to be a gaffe is in fact the ONLY way to get heard through a media which time and again has stupidly lost control of the real national mind. He takes the pain and the risk, gets people talking about him and frames the inexperience issue that will NOT go away ever in the only way it can help him.

It helps him with me if he really is crossing the Rubicon before getting saddled with the old guard staff such as we and the worried wise always tout when electing someone supposedly not ready for prime time. Like that marvelous experienced Cheney staff that helped junior become the incompetent, carefree, untrustworthy monster he is today. it helps with me if he is serious about winning this year and serious about being president and is willing to make the necessary, risky decisions now. This is just one symbol actually and because it has inevitable down sides he must continue to skirt the fallout of being the "new" leader by succeeding in that navigation with the ultimate voters. The MSM will not concede him a Reaganesque moment so he has to keep on without getting everything from a defining moment. The wisdom of that is he rolls the Hillary campaign back on its vulnerable heels inn the process. Against a bolder candidate he would make much less immediate headway for all the attrition one swallows with certain daring moves.

This is 90% campaign politics and 10% the foreign policy issue from the Obama campaign perspective and just the disingenuous opposite from his top rival and the MSM. The trouble is that with the people all the clucking and complex foreign policy wisdom is going to make Obama look like a foreign policy leader under criticism for boldness, not a desperate candidate scoring a perception point. The inexperience meme remains, but the dynamism- so deadly for the fragile hold Hillary really has- shifts to the new guy.

As for the issue, just maybe, someday, the media might let slip out(like Bin Laden from Tora Bora) that the Dems in general really mean to change the truly dangerous, devastating and treasonous Bush policy.

[Martin Eden]

108. Politics, but very little Substance

Your lengthy synopsis essentially confirms my point that Obama's statement was essentially to establish some "tough on terror" credentials in the context of electoral politics. Almost nothing you wrote evaluates the foreign policy issue of whether it would be wise to conduct a US military operation inside Pakistan for the purpose of capturing OBL and his top lieutenants.

You'll get no argument from me about the "devastating and treasonous Bush policy" -- that is not the substance of our disagreement. I'm discussing the foreign policy decision Obama has announced. On the one hand you commend Obama because he is "is willing to make the necessary, risky decisions now" while on the other you write it "is 90% campaign politics and 10% the foreign policy issue from the Obama campaign." Well, is he deciding on a course of action now or is it just political rhetoric designed to win an election?

I've had my fill of politicians whose campaign promises cannot be counted on as anything more than electoral strategizing, and I'm especially wary of Democrats who feel they need to take military action to prove they are a strong or "experienced" leader.

I think Obama is making a mistake if he assumes voters are unable to comprehend a complex foreign policy debate. Perhaps he clarified his statement in a way that narrows the parameters of an operation in Pakistan and recognizes the potential consequences. If so, that is what foreign policy debate is about. I wouldn't rule out a high-probability capture of OBL with a low risk of collateral damage. However, that's not the sense I get from Obama's statement or from your defense of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

105. Obama IS NOT talking about an invasion

He isn't saying that he will send thousands of troops to sweep the country for Bin Laden. He is saying that if we know exactly where he is, he will send the special ops to kill him. The special ops will be in and out before anybody even notices. I really don't see the problem or how anyone could disagree with it.

[Martin Eden]

109. Neither am I

If the operation was as simple and as successful as you describe, I would have no problem with it. However, I have serious doubts that such an operation would be so clean and devoid of repercussions. Furthermore, Obama stated he would act on "actionable intelligence" if Musharraf wouldn't -- he didn't qualify it as you did. To get at OBL, a special ops team would likely have to fight its way through a compound in a tribal area. Sneaking in and out of OBL's bedchamber would not be the most likely scenario.

I'm not saying I would categorically reject such an operation, but I hope you (and Barack) understand the likely reaction among Pakistanis and the difficult position this would put Musharraf in. In my opinion Pakistan poses a much greater potential threat than Iran to the US among Islamic nation-states. Extremely careful judgement is called for, and part of any measured assessment is just how high-value of a target OBL is these days.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. I don't see the special ops fighting their way through a tribal area

In that scenario we would probably use a missile instead which, IMO does need to be handled VERY delicately. Of course it wouldn't make any sense for Obama to let Al Qaeda know exactly what type of operations we will and won't use to go and get them.

[BreweryYardRat]

103. Good for him. He needs to make it clearer that he's not advocating invasion, though.

It's pretty obvious that he's just talking about Special Forces attacks and air strikes, but there's going to be an uproar of people claiming he has imperial ambitions.

[Hippo_Tron]

106. He needs to clarify but re-affirm at the same time

IMO this will benefit him in the long run. He's making the other candidates look like idiots for not wanting to kill Bin Laden. He should give a speech with something to the effect of "I have no intention of invading Pakistan. But if we know where Bin Laden is, we're going to get him."

[UrbScotty]

115. Proof that often in politics, people get derided from both sides for doing the right thing (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

116. Obama has it exactly right.

His stance COMPLETELY defuses the GOP.

[Lilith Velkor]

117. Thought the headline said, "Obama vows to kill Bin Laden, Conservatives"

...until I reread it.

If that were the case, he'd DEFINITELY have my vote. Ah well....

[MasonJar]

118. Let's see, Conservatives all. is this the same bin Laden that W was going to

"bring in dead or alive"? However,(I am sure) after being reminded of the manner in which the Saudis had dug his sorry behind out of more than one dynastic and dynamic failure after another, Bush did not use the force available in Tora Bora to complete the job. I am sure the shadow pres cheney also took the opportunity to remind the stump that there would be no invasion of Iraq if bin Laden were captured so handily.

[Terri S]

119. I know this thread is old, but I just HAVE to post this link...

I honestly cannot figure out why anyone defends Hillary. Here's a video showing her, once again, showing she'll say one thing one minute, and the opposite thing when she thinks it will help her politically.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama binLaden or other high value targets were in Pakistan, I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured"

[burrowowl]

120. How?

By bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan or police action?
Police action should have been the choice from the get go!