See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Obama stakes turf, outlines counterterrorism plan - Would add troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid
Source:
The Boston Globe
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 6, 2008
Author: Scott Helman
Post Date: 2008-04-06 21:46:10 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 637
Comments: 46
WASHINGTON - The United States must add at least 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid spending to $50 billion, and be prepared to strike unilaterally against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said yesterday in a major speech laying out his counterterrorism plan. The thrust of Obama's 35-minute address on national security was that America is less safe today than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He argued that the "misguided" war in Iraq and the sacrifice of American values in military detentions have sparked fresh anti-Americanism and diverted attention from the crucial task of bringing Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," Obama said to a roomful of journalists and scholars at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Obama delivered his speech, in which he outlined a robust foreign policy with several military and diplomatic components, amid a fierce debate with presidential rival Hillary Clinton about when it is appropriate for a US president to meet with leaders of rogue nations such as Syria and Iran. Obama continued to sharpen their differences yesterday by obliquely equating the New York senator's reticence to meet with such leaders with the policies of President Bush, which he said has failed. "It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear," Obama said. Political analysts interpreted Obama's speech as a pointed message to his presidential competitors: that he will not accept being portrayed as weak or inexperienced on terrorism and world affairs. Within hours of his remarks, however, the campaign of one of those competitors, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, dubbed Obama a "Johnny-come-lately" and said Obama had contributed little in recent months while Biden has worked toward many of the same goals. Much of Obama's speech was devoted to how the United States should use nonmilitary means to rebuild relationships around the world. He vowed to attend a "major Islamic forum" in his first 100 days in office. He called for a new $2 billion global education fund to combat the influence of radical Islamic schools. And he said he would launch a public diplomacy initiative consisting of "America Houses" across the Islamic world with the "Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs." But though Obama proposed billions in new spending, he did not detail yesterday how he would pay for it. Aides said that drawing down the US military presence in Iraq would free up billions. One striking element of the speech was Obama's tough rhetoric on Pakistan, which he said must do more to root out terrorists hiding in its remote regions or lose American aid. And he said that if Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, was unwilling to go after high-level terrorist targets despite "actionable intelligence," the United States would act on its own. "I understand President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But ... there are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again." Husain Haqqani, director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University and a former adviser to several Pakistani prime ministers, said Obama was right to address forthrightly Pakistan's role in battling terrorism. But, he said, the United States had to be absolutely sure of its target or a unilateral military strike could backfire. "It sounds very good to say we're going to go in and strike, but who are you striking and what are you striking?" Haqqani said. "All you're going to do is turn people against the US." Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who is also running for the Democratic nomination and trying to get traction, was unusually critical of Obama's remarks on Pakistan, saying it was "dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power." Obama was introduced by Lee Hamilton, a former US representative from Indiana who helped lead the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group. Hamilton has not endorsed a candidate, but he gave Obama's speech high marks afterward, calling it "very well done." "I'm very impressed with the number of quite constructive proposals he had in the speech," Hamilton said, highlighting Obama's strong warning to Pakistan. "It seems to me if we've learned anything at all about fighting terrorism, we have learned that we cannot permit Al Qaeda to have sanctuaries, and those sanctuaries must go." In another veiled jab yesterday at Clinton, Obama stepped up his criticism of Congress's 2002 vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. "Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war," he said, also dubbing Congress "coauthor of a catastrophic war." Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com. Obama stakes turf, outlines counterterrorism plan - Would add troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: Flintlock (#3)
a politically incorrect LOL.
Don't be so certain. Keep in mind, Obama has declared he wants to roll over Pakistan unless they play ball. That's three wars (including the new one) - are you sure this is an improvement?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
WASHINGTON - In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. ... It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective." The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security. Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved. During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned. Now, Obama's views about the war have become a campaign issue, as Hillary Clinton - who voted for the war's authorization - has questioned whether Obama has been consistent in opposing the war. Her husband, Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a "fairy tale." And yesterday, news of an Obama adviser's comments that his promise to withdraw troops within 16 months represented only a "best-case scenario" further fanned questions about his Iraq views. Yesterday, Obama struck back, declaring that Clinton "doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue." And he added that, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused." In 2004, while supporting the Democratic presidential nominee, John F. Kerry, Obama endorsed Kerry's view that the United States had too much at stake in Iraq to withdraw at that time. Since joining the Senate in 2005, Obama has taken incrementally tougher positions on Iraq, even as he sought to hear from a wide variety of voices about what should be done there, according to aides, advisers, and transcripts of his speeches. In November of 2005, after it had become clear that US troops faced a raging insurgency, Obama argued in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that the US military should scale down its presence, but that US troops were "still part of the solution" in Iraq. "We have to manage our exit in a responsible way," he told the council, "at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and perhaps irreparable crisis." In January of 2006, Obama took his first trip to Iraq, staying two days, and while there he heard conflicting views on whether US troops should stay or go. He expressed frustration with the failure of Iraqi leaders to resolve key disputes, telling reporters that "if we have not seen significant progress over the next few months, we need to have an honest conversation with Iraqis as to what our investment is." But 2006 unfolded as a year of sectarian bloodshed, deepening Obama's conviction that the US effort was being squandered. He began to call for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. By that time, the call was far from unusual, however; other senators had called for a phased withdrawal earlier. "The notion that the United States can't be more committed to the future of Iraq than Iraqis became much more of the prominent view" among Democrats and even some Republicans in 2006, said Rand Beers, a former foreign policy adviser to Kerry. By November of that year, voters across the nation expressed anger over Iraq, handing control of Congress to Democrats. A month later, the Iraq Study Group recommended reducing US military support for Iraq's government if its leaders failed to make progress on achieving political agreements. An author of that report, Benjamin Rhodes, later joined Obama's campaign as a foreign policy adviser, and Obama adopted some of the group's language in his 2007 bill calling for all combat brigades to be withdrawn by March of 2008. As Obama mulled a presidential run, he began to reach out to a series of military leaders, including those who did not agree with him on Iraq. When Richard Danzig, a former Navy secretary, organized two meetings for Obama with retired military officers, Danzig asked whether he should invite officers who opposed Obama's views. The answer was yes, Danzig recalled. "One of the attractive things about Obama is the desire to get a range of views and process them himself rather than get a homogenized product or exclude people who aren't in sympathy with him," Danzig said. In a separate meeting, Obama asked General Anthony Zinni, a critic of the war effort, what should be done in Iraq. Zinni told him: "I don't think you can abandon Iraq. The region is too important." Despite those views, Obama's foreign policy advisory team began working on a detailed plan for bringing US troops home and managing the potential humanitarian crisis that could follow. Obama's campaign set up a working group on Iraq, headed by Colin Kahl, a security studies professor at Georgetown University. In July 2007, Obama's top advisers and Iraq specialists, including Kahl, produced a memo that shaped Obama's core Iraq views, made public in a Sept. 12 speech: to bring home one to two combat brigades each month, with all brigades out in 16 months, and keep only a small number of troops in Iraq to protect US diplomats and launch limited, targeted strikes on Al Qaeda. But this week, Obama adviser Samantha Power caused a stir when she told BBC's "Hard Talk" that Obama "will revisit" the plan when he becomes president. "You can't make a commitment in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009," said Power, who resigned from the campaign yesterday over separate comments insulting Clinton. "He will, of course, not rely upon some plan that he has crafted as a presidential candidate or a US senator. He will rely upon an operational plan that he pulls together in consultation with people on the ground." Obama insisted yesterday he would stick to his plan. But Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said voters should expect Obama's views on the war to shift. "If you look at Obama's stands, he has taken different stands, or differently nuanced stands, based on his perceptions of the changing realities on the ground," Mead said. "As a rational human being, [if he is elected president] nine months from now, he'll have to do the same thing. He'll have to look carefully at the situation as it is, and make the best policy calls that he can." Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
the mass media has through the last 2 years given Obama a lot of play and it has been very positive play. this should be a big tip-off and I know it is to most people at 4um that the guy is no good.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
strike unilaterally against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan Not quite the same is it? But don't let the actual facts stop you, they haven't so far.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Despite those views, Obama's foreign policy advisory team began working on a detailed plan for bringing US troops home and managing the potential humanitarian crisis that could follow. Obama's consistently wants to end the Iraq war. Headlines can be very misleading.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Long Live Big
He's not Buckwheat, he's Stymie.
"I can kill you with my brain." - River Tam
It used to be Bill who was young, gifted, and black.
I disagree
all I know is I was curious about whether or not Obama really is a war-monger the way I've always thought he was. and I looked at his web site. On that issue he says he wants to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq, but he wants to leave enough to keep control and he wants to use the bases in Iraq to attack neighboring countries. When he says he wants to bring the troops home he means he wants to bring some troops home on rotation. he also votes to fund the war. I don't blame anyone who votes for Obama. At the same time a vote for the lesser of 2 evils is a clear choice for evil. I don't really believe in democracy myself. I think we can just stick the whole enterprise with a fork because its done.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
In different statements, Obama has indicated that he would support an invasion of Pakistan or a bombing campaign or both. It depends on the phase of the moon and time of day as to which you get from him. Those are the facts. Don't let the facts get in your way. Enjoy the gooeymoon while you can. Reality is a lot harsher than where you're at now.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Enjoy your warmongering, Zionist Hagee lovin' McCain presidency as you ignore every anti-war statement that Obama has made, even before the war started.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
That they can. Every one of Obama's "Bring em home" speeches ends with statements about how US troops will remain in Iraq or the region. His statement about the American century not ending, but just getting started, scares the hell out of me. It should be filed next to McCains "100 years of war" sound bite and Hillary refusing to rule out using nukes on Iran. Fewer wars from a guy who wants a bigger military, NATO on Moscow's doorstep, and thinks that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace? Vegas wouldn't touch those odds.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
What would you do? Leave them in Iraq w/o equipment and ammo? He spoke out strongly against the war before it started. Obama says he will restore habeas corpus and bring the troops home in 16 months. No one here wants to believe him. They prefer to wallow in "Ain't it awful" and "There's no hope". Well I see a Obama as a good chance at getting us out of the ME. The ZioNazis don't like him. That's a real plus IMO.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Does that mean I have to ignore every warmongering statement Obama makes currently so I can live in a fantasy land where he is the Savior of Mankind like some people on this site? Sorry. Not going to happen. Welcome to reality. When Obama comments about invading Pakistan as he HAS DONE, I take him quite seriously. You don't. There will be no end to the wars REGARDLESS of which of the Three Stooges gets into office. That is reality. Get used to it and get used to disappointment.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
He carefully speaks of combat troops, not (other) troops or contractors. Our military is staying in Iraq and the combat troops will be redeployed throughout the region. I'm not fighting here, just trying to learn what a politician is really saying beyond a stump speech.
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
Reality for you will be allowing a McCain presidency. In Buchanan's words, he will make Cheney look like Gandhi. Obama has not made any warmongering statements. You choose to interpret what he has said that way. Stating to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months is not warmongering. An adviser on his campaign has suggested, in his own opinion, not the campaign's to leave 60K troops.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
The US military will NEVER leave the Middle East. Anyone that thinks we will is deluding themselves.
My favorite Stymie was when he tossed up those eggs and they landed on his head. Classic :)
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
Ah, a one trillion dollar (to date) investment in a land where oil is the national plant.....no, we aren't leaving. In the words of Colin Powell, "We broke it and now we own it."
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
Barack Obama got an amendment attached to the Senate Defense bill which requires oversight and accountability of military and security contractors like Blackwater. OTOH, he has said he won't rule out using them in Irag; disappointing. You can be sure that McCain will be using mercenaries and they will continue to be unaccountable for their actions.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
This government/military is planning on much bigger affairs farther down the road. Iraq/Afghanistan are merely means to an end.
you're 100% correct. the day will come when the people who rule the US will use the US as an instrument to committ truly mass murder/genocide. and the whole world will step back in shock. and then they will watch us 10 times more closely than they watch us now to see if we will change our government. and when we fail to do so they will quietly plot our destruction. and then they will carry out their plan.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Super-State Governance, fewer currencies, more central Global planning. Fucking World Communists won.
Red... For anyone with a large world map and wanting a visual affirmation of what is afoot in the ME, a quick glance will tell one why Obama wants more troops in Afghanistan. People clamor for the US to drop Pakistan and stop supporting them. Looking at a world map one sees that Afghanistan and Pakistan are blocking forces between Asia and the oil rich Middle East. Obama is NOT a military strategist, he is merely mouthing what he has been told to say.
ah..thank you for that geographic information.
Obama did not pull out of a hat this idea of sending MORE troops to Afghanistan. Like the others, he is told what his position is. Anyone that doubts this fact should then explain WHY we need more troops there, on the Chinese border. Bush and friends used Iraq to get the US into the ME, after a trillion dollars and untold bloodshed we are not leaving. The troops may get shuffled, but the bases are permanent, we are staying, regardless of who becomes president.
Thanks for the map. Chinas oil from the ME all goes via the Straits of Malacca, and the US has been trying to obtain permission to station warships there, however so far Malayasia has demurred.
Welcome to G HW Bush and Family's (Clintons +++ included) NEW WORLD ORDER. You will make a fine global citizen. Or else.
People that honestly believe Obama is going to change world events are deluding themselves. Obama is always expendable.
Really? By Dan Balz Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists. Issuing a statement of readiness to invade Pakistan "unilaterally" is not a declaration of readiness to go to war? In what universe is that a declaration of anything but willngness to go to war? From the same article: There isn't much to "interpret" there. Its a flat-out statement of warmongering. THERE WILL BE WAR! There isn't a gnat's eyebrow's worth of difference between ANY of the Three Stooges when it comes to deploying the military. Get used to disappointment when it comes to ending the wars. America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Where did you come up with this 'invade' thing? You're distorting what he said.
Then explain how one deploys troops to a country where we have no military bases and without their government's permission where it is not an "invasion". Note that Obama said he would take "unilateral" action - meaning he doesn't care what the Government of Pakistan thinks or says. What is it other than an invasion then - a paid vacation?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
bump
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
Byline: Mike Dorning Aug. 2--WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, under attack from a rival who portrays him as naive on foreign policy, declared Wednesday that he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first. The Illinois senator said he would take military action as president, if necessary, despite the risk of undercutting Pakistan's leader, President Pervez Musharraf, an important American ally. "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Obama delivered the warning in a speech on counterterrorism policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank in Washington. Obama outlined strong views on a foreign policy issue at a time when his chief rival in early presidential polling, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), has sought to depict him as naive in international affairs after Obama indicated he would be willing to negotiate with foreign dictators that the U.S. has shunned. His declaration also followed revelations last month that the Bush administration made a last-minute decision in 2005 to abort a special forces raid to capture senior Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas amid fears the operation might jeopardize relations with Pakistan. The disclosure stirred criticism of the White House, and in his speech Obama called the decision to abort "a terrible mistake." A national intelligence assessment recently made public concluded that Al Qaeda is reconstituting itself in the remote region of Pakistan and gaining strength, including setting up training camps. The Bush administration has followed a delicate strategy in Pakistan. The White House has prodded Musharraf, a key ally in the struggle against the Taliban, to take stronger steps against terrorist havens while also taking care not to undermine a leader who maintains a tenuous hold on power and faces an internal challenge from Islamic fundamentalists. Events this summer have underscored Musharraf's shaky position. An attempt by the Pakistani president to dismiss the Supreme Court chief justice stirred violent riots and moved the court's full membership to overrule the president in a politically damaging rebuff. Islamic fundamentalists took control of the capital city's Red Mosque until they were ousted through a bloody military raid. That raid in turn prompted a series of suicide bombings against the Pakistani government. Obama said he would make continued military aid to Pakistan conditional on a more aggressive Pakistani army offensive against Al Qaeda followers who have retreated to a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in which local tribes operate virtually free of central government authority. "I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," Obama said. White House defends strategy White House spokesman Tony Snow defended the Bush administration's strategy in Pakistan. "We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," Snow said. "Gen. Musharraf, President Musharraf, is clearly somebody who has chips in the game here," added Snow, who noted that the Pakistani leader has been the target of multiple assassination attempts. Still, in an action that many observers read as a tilt by the Bush administration toward a military strike, White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend pointedly declined to rule out the option in a television interview in late July, stirring a chorus of protests in Pakistan. Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory. "If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America," Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks. But two of Obama's other Democratic rivals expressed skepticism at his pronouncements Wednesday. It's understood that the U.S. might have to go into Pakistan under some circumstances, said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but that is not something to discuss publicly for fear of undermining Musharraf. "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, it's to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club, suggesting Obama's comments reflected inexperience. "It's not something you talk about; as president, it's something I would do." Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), also a longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed the criticism. Analyst: Blow to Musharraf Teresita Schaffer, a former State Department official with responsibility for the region and now director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that an overt U.S. military strike inside Pakistani territory would be a particular blow to Musharraf, who is a military leader, and could well lead to his ouster. It also would bolster leaders hostile to the United States in both the struggle for national leadership and local control of the tribal areas, she said. "Once you have made that kind of operation, everything connected to the United States, even more than before, is believed to be the enemy," Schaffer said. "You've probably created a safe haven that works even better than before." ------ mdorning@tribune.com To see more of the Chicago Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.chicagotribune.com. Copyright (c) 2007, Chicago Tribune Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847- 635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA. Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
Obama delivered the warning in a speech on counterterrorism policy "at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars" Therein lies the problem, Obummer is NOT a scholar, rather he is just another mouthpiece for the system. Anyone that takes him seriously on any subject needs to do some self assessment.
It seems to me once you begin peeling back the onion skin on him, the more his his core becomes clear. He's no saviour, and I don't take his peace position seriously. It sounds wonderful, but haven't folks like us been digging deeper into these guys than the average sheeple? With Obama, the more you dig the more contradictory his positions are.
Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
LOL
"I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," Obama said. Teresita Schaffer, a former State Department official with responsibility for the region and now director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Why does CSIS sound familiar?
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Comments (45 - 46) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCFR Buckwheat
#5. To: robin (#2)
Far, far less than if we end up with a warmongering McCain presidency.
#6. To: Flintlock, mirage, all (#3)
Catch the last paragraph.
Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view; Senator saw `obligation' in '04 to success of state
#7. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
#8. To: mirage (#5)
Obama has declared he wants to roll over Pakistan
#9. To: Jethro Tull, Red Jones (#6)
In a separate meeting, Obama asked General Anthony Zinni, a critic of the war effort, what should be done in Iraq. Zinni told him: "I don't think you can abandon Iraq. The region is too important."
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#6)
stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007
Brother Buckwheat!
#11. To: Flintlock (#3)
CFR Buckwheat
#12. To: Jethro Tull (#6)
Her husband, Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a "fairy tale."
I've already said too much.
#13. To: YertleTurtle (#11)
#14. To: robin (#9)
#15. To: robin (#8)
Not quite the same is it? But don't let the actual facts stop you, they haven't so far.
#16. To: mirage (#15)
#17. To: robin (#9)
Headlines can be very misleading.
#18. To: Red Jones (#14)
When he says he wants to bring the troops home he means he wants to bring some troops home on rotation. he also votes to fund the war.
#19. To: robin (#16)
as you ignore every anti-war statement that Obama has made, even before the war started.
When Obama puts on his website that he will leave troops in Iraq, I take him quite seriously.
When Obama comments he wants to expand the war in Afghanistan, I take him quite seriously.
#20. To: robin (#18)
(Edited)
Obama says he will restore habeas corpus and bring the troops home in 16 months.
#21. To: mirage (#19)
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
#23. To: YertleTurtle (#11)
He's not Buckwheat, he's Stymie.
#24. To: Cynicom (#22)
The US military will NEVER leave the Middle East. Anyone that thinks we will is deluding themselves.
#25. To: Jethro Tull (#20)
#26. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
#27. To: Cynicom (#26)
#28. To: Cynicom (#26)
#29. To: Red Jones (#27)
then they will carry out their plan.
#30. To: Cynicom (#29)
Looking at a world map one sees that Afghanistan and Pakistan are blocking forces between Asia and the oil rich Middle East.
#31. To: christine (#30)
#32. To: Cynicom (#31)
#33. To: _______, christine (#32)
#34. To: Cynicom (#33)
#35. To: _______ (#34)
#36. To: robin (#21)
Obama has not made any warmongering statements. You choose to interpret what he has said that way.
Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; Page A01"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won,"
What do you think it means? Showering the world with lollypops and teddy bears?
NONE of the three frontrunners will do it.
#37. To: mirage (#36)
Issuing a statement of readiness to invade Pakistan "unilaterally" is not a declaration of readiness to go to war?
#38. To: Fred Mertz (#37)
(Edited)
Where did you come up with this 'invade' thing? You're distorting what he said.
#39. To: Cynicom (#31)
Like the others, he is told what his position is.
#40. To: Fred Mertz, mirage, cynisom, peppa, buckeye, flintlock, all (#37)
Obama: If Pakistan doesn't hit Al Qaeda, U.S. must: Strike unless ally acts, Clinton agrees; Biden, Dodd critical.
#41. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
Obama delivered the warning in a speech on counterterrorism policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
#42. To: Cynicom (#41)
#43. To: Jethro Tull, 911 Truthers (#40)
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.
#44. To: Jethro Tull (#40)
Obama said he would make continued military aid to Pakistan conditional on a more aggressive Pakistani army offensive against Al Qaeda followers who have retreated to a region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in which local tribes operate virtually free of central government authority.
.
.
.