posted on August 1, 2007 11:10:58 AM new
Another armchair donkeycrat warrior wanna be.
Obama to Deliver Bold Speech About War on Terror
Presidential Candidate to Push Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan
By JAKE TAPPER
Aug. 1, 2007 —
In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "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. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Watch Jake Tapper's full interview with Sen. Barack Obama tonight on "Nightline" at 11:35 p.m. EDT
Obama's mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan's tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."
In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.
The speech, to be delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seems an attempt by Obama to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hopes to seem not only a youthful idealist, but a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack.
One of the ways he hopes to achieve this is by pointing out the inherent flaws in the complicated U.S.-Pakistan relationship, an uneasy alliance based in part on U.S. fears of an Islamist government that might replace Musharraf. But Obama will propose in his speech a more aggressive stance with that nuclear nation, making the "hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and 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."
Additionally Obama will call for at least two additional brigades to redeploy to Afghanistan to re-enforce U.S. counter terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. This would be accompanied by political and economic efforts, Obama will say, pledging to increase nonmilitary U.S. aid to Afghanistan by a whopping $1 billion.
The shift from Iraq to Afghanistan and possibly even Pakistan is one of five elements he plans to call for in his speech. The other four are improving diplomacy for the purpose of counterterrorism and counterproliferation; creating a $5 billion Shared Security Partnership Program that he will say will "forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks around the globe; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
The speech comes one week after Obama engaged in an increasingly heated back and forth with Clinton about whether a president should readily agree to meet with leaders of countries hostile to the United States. Obama said he would, Clinton said she wouldn't, and a forceful back and forth ensued.
Clinton fired the first salvo, calling Obama's willingness to meet with men like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez or Cuban dictator Fidel Castro "irresponsible and frankly naive." Obama fired back, saying "If anything is irresponsible and naive, it was authorizing George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq apparently without knowing how they were going to get out."
At a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Obama implied her policy would be "Bush-Cheney Lite." Clinton took to CNN to respond, saying their debate "is getting kind of silly. I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been called Bush or Cheney. You have to ask what happened to the 'politics of hope.'"
In the speech excerpts, Obama makes no mention of Clinton directly, though he implicates her decision to vote to authorize use of force in Iraq as aiding al Qaeda. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq," he will say, "President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama, whose father was Muslim, makes clear that he does not share the views of Democrats who downplay the risk of Islamist terrorism. In language rare for a Democratic presidential candidate, Obama will talk about Muslims who seek to create a repressive caliphate. "To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for."
The Obama campaign says those assisting with the speech constituted a mix of a new generation of national security and foreign policy experts such as Samantha Power, a professor of global leadership and public policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide"; Susan Rice, member of the National Security Council for President Clinton; Greg Craig, former Clinton administration undersecretary of state and director of policy planning; and more experienced old hands, such as President Clinton's National Security Adviser Tony Lake, former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and retired Maj. Gen. General Jonathan Gration.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on August 1, 2007 01:00:34 PM new
Where are all the libs that villify Bush for invading Iraq. What a mess that would be, remember Pakistan has "the bomb" and would not hesitate to use it.
posted on August 1, 2007 02:01:35 PM newJust goes to PROVE how the liberals just CANNOT be allowed to win the WH nor stronger control of the Senate/House.
They'll 'take action' against Pakistan and we'll have a NUCLEAR war on our hands. Now THAT will certainly be MUCH better than continuing to TALK and put pressure on Musharraf to go after these terrorists.....WHICH HE IS DOING AS I TYPE.
Musharraf is ALREADY taking extreme pressures from all the Pakistan people who are upset so many of THEM are being killed while he's actively going after the AQ in the terrorist camps.
Are they really THAT ignorant? It sure appears to be so. Who in the WORLD is obama using as HIS security advisor? EXPOSE HIM immediately.
"even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf."
Gee that would definitely be considered declaring WAR on Pakistan....and will certainly be sure our ally Musharraf will be quickly removed from power and some radical lunatic will fill his position.
Could THAT be obama's goal?
Imo, obama PROVES his TOTAL - read SCARY-lack of foreign policy since he doesn't understand what the consequences of doing THAT would cause.
But YEP, as usual the ranters, ravers, whining liberals here refuse to comment on any statement where their side even mentions DOING anything against anyone. tsk tsk tsk
But under a dem president I doubt they'd be taking the SAME position against war that they are with Iraq.
===================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 1, 2007 02:05 PM ]
posted on August 1, 2007 03:18:18 PM new
The leftie MSM is wondering why the new 'show' of power and strength is causing obama to want to go into Pakistan....and if it's wise to do so or not.
You'd think obama dropped a bomb on their heads. lol
Do the liberals REALLY have a military HAWK running for their party? lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 1, 2007 03:22 PM ]
posted on August 1, 2007 11:42:44 PM new
LOL! linduh LOVES war and bloodshed, thinks dropping bombs is better than talking....UNTIL a Democrat proposes it and then EEEK! her rank double standards rear their heads and she FLIP FLOPS
posted on August 2, 2007 07:18:05 AM new
Obama had a good chance of beating out Hillary for the nomination. Now in a couple of statements, he has ripped his britches.
Any intelligent comments, mingo, besides berating someone. I didn't think so.
posted on August 2, 2007 07:56:20 AM new
The comment was directed straight to you, mingo because you just berated someone in the post above mine (again).
posted on August 2, 2007 07:58:58 AM new
"""The comment was directed straight to you, mingo because you just berated someone in the post above mine (again)."""
So WHAT? You crazy old sexist control freak... Trying to clean up Dodge City, Dukey ???
Well, keep banging your head against a brick wall and see if you get more than a headache LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
posted on August 2, 2007 08:05:30 AM new
I see that you are berating again, mingo. Any intelligent comments from you? I didn't think so. You can't make an intelligent comment can you? You try first to be funny, then you real self comes out with your insults. The more you try to think of what to say, the worse your response.
Clean up Dodge City. Nope, not until you clean up your own foul nest.
posted on August 2, 2007 08:50:58 AM new
Noting the LACK of democrats/liberals calling for obama to follow the SAME demands they've tried to hold this administration to....and haven't stopped whining about it since we went into Iraq....
FIRST:
get permission from the UN before INVADING Pakistan.
get allies to JOIN with us in bombing Pakistan.
Where are all their OTHER 'demands' BEFORE we start war in another Nation?
They appear to be MISSING in action. lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Etex, your inadvertent attacks on Mingo's laughter has backfired. Linda, whose very essense is relegated to laughing before, after and during her efforts to communicate is now virtually hogtied.
posted on August 2, 2007 09:05:31 AM new
FIRST:
get permission from the UN before INVADING Pakistan.
get allies to JOIN with us in bombing Pakistan.
Where are all their OTHER 'demands' BEFORE we start war in another Nation?
posted on August 2, 2007 09:06:30 AM new
Hey, helen.....why aren't you throwing one of your hissy fits about what obama is calling for? lol
After all, he's about as LIBERAL as you're going to get. And he's calling for:
"a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf."
A HAWK....a warmonger - HE wants to KILL innocent Parkistani's. Who'd have thunk that would EVER come from a liberal?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 2, 2007 09:10:15 AM new Etex...Now, start working on the use of all caps. Some here depend on that technique to emphasize their otherwise weak points.
posted on August 2, 2007 09:11:48 AM new
Like most liberals here, with the exception of CC, helen offers ALL she has to offer....trolling and baiting...so much like kiara and mingo.
posted on August 2, 2007 09:21:22 AM new
"CC - Boy is THAT a WEAK excuse for not discussing what HE'S proposing.
Like you expect us to believe you can/haven't formed an opinion on what he's proposing should he be elected? lol"
My response was to your post demanding Obama do things he can't do unless he is president. Unlike you, I do not usually make snap decisions based on political beliefs. I tend to be a liberal/democrat, but that does not mean I will blindly follow all liberal democrats. Been quite busy this week, so need to catch up and read more information before deciding. Just because a liberal democrat made these statements, doesn't mean I will support them, but also doesn' mean I won't support them. Don't like kneejerk reactions.
posted on August 2, 2007 09:38:05 AM new
helen - you TROLL so well.
===============
Of course, CC. Just as I said. Liberals are always reluctant to give THEIR opinions on most subjects. They do BEST at criticizing the actions/decisions/positions that ARE taken by those not afraid to make decisions.
I completely understand. In my book, it's called 'avoidance behavior'...and dems always have an excuse to avoid answering questions put to them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 2, 2007 09:39 AM ]
posted on August 2, 2007 09:42:02 AM new
Now that was a blanket characterization of Liberals again but at least you avoided attacking the poster with insults and inappropriate use of smiley faces.
posted on August 2, 2007 09:47:53 AM new
"blanket characterization of Liberals again"
Yes, I have NEVER denied that I believe most all liberals are wackos.
And that I don't see dems as all being liberals...because they're NOT.
And just to be clear, helen, I have never seen YOU as far 'right' as most liberals are....you're not. You are much further left than MOST liberals are.
Now....back to helen's trolling....baiting....which she does SO well.
posted on August 2, 2007 10:01:55 AM new
"Of course, CC. Just as I said. Liberals are always reluctant to give THEIR opinions on most subjects. They do BEST at criticizing the actions/decisions/positions that ARE taken by those not afraid to make decisions."
I am not in the habit of making snap judgements, especially on such important points. I do not form my opinions based on who said what. I try to gather as much information as I can, but I have a life and serious responsibilities outside this board. I do the research when I can. It is not avoidance---it is called thinking. You apparently have it much easier when making decisions---Republican/neocon...Yea Democrat/liberal...Nay---you are done.
Who in the WORLD is obama using as HIS security advisor? EXPOSE HIM immediately.
