Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pakistan answers Obama
Posted by: McQ on Friday, August 03, 2007

And to say they weren't impressed by the presidential candidate's declaration that he'd act unilaterally with or without Pakistan's permission if he had "actionable intelligence" about high value targets located in that country would be an understatement.
Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

[...]

"We have said before that we will not allow anyone to infringe our sovereignty," Azeem said.

"If there is any actionable intelligence they should tell us and only our forces will take action on it and they are quite capable of it."
So here we have a presidential candidate, who likes to preach about how he'd change the world's perception of the US to a positive one, alienating an ally before ever setting foot in the Oval office.

Nice going, Barack.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I don’t understand your objection to what Obama said. If we learn that bin Laden or other senior AQ leaders are in Pakistan — or anywhere else for that matter — we should kill or capture them. These Islamofacists attacked us on our soil and killed 3,000 civilians. If we doubt the commitment of the nation harboring the Islamofacists, we must do it ourselves. I don’t care who likes it. What is the problem?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
McQ’s problem with Obama’s words have been completely manifested in the post. Apparently Pakistan doesn’t like what Obama said, and you can’t understand their objections, either.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Apparently Pakistan doesn’t like what Obama said, and you can’t understand their objections, either.
No, I do understand Pakistan’s objections. Those objections, however, are overridden by our right/obligation to kill or capture those who already attacked us once and presumably are planning to do so again. Would you expect any American president to act otherwise?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Pakistan is a tinder box. I would hope that Obama understands this, though if he doesn’t get the nomination it’s irrelevant.

However, these things need to be said by someone.

It is a serious possibility that for political reasons, Pakistan’s current government will never seriously go after UBL for fear of a popular uprising.

If that’s the case, then we may have an ally who is granting reasonable safe harbor to Al Qaeda.

What do you call an ally like that?

We invaded Afghanistan for this.

We invaded for Iraq for a lot less.

I’m not suggesting that we invade Pakistan, but I’m curious, would one of the Obama detractors please tell me what we SHOULD do if we determine that AQ has an essentially safe base of operations in Pakistan?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Obtusenessy wrote:
No, I do understand Pakistan’s objections. Those objections, however, are overridden by our right/obligation
It’s too complex an issue for you to understand. For instance, Musharraf’s regime hangs by a thread in Pakistan. He depends on the military for support. He also needs the U.S. and the U.S. needs him. Pakistan is a torn country where an unsteady political consensus could lurch, virtually overnight, onto a path hostile to the U.S., which would ruin a relationship that’s been built over decades.

There are nuclear weapons involved. There is a strategic balance, between India and Pakistan, involved. And that’s before you get to the plain vanilla question of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

On the other hand, there are ways to get things done in those tribal mountain regions that don’t involve the sort of posturing obtuseness of Obama, or the Obama-bots.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
No, I do understand Pakistan’s objections. Those objections, however, are overridden by our right/obligation to kill or capture those who already attacked us once and presumably are planning to do so again. Would you expect any American president to act otherwise?
Well, no. But you don’t nuke or drop millions of pounds of bombs in such cases. SpecOp forces exist for this sort of thing...

And you certainly don’t TALK about it, ffs...

Hell, we probably run ops into Pakistan right now. Pakistan probably has a good idea that we are. We just aren’t talking about it out loud.

It’s just not done, old bean...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
And you certainly don’t TALK about it
The guy is running for president. Of course, he’s going to talk about it. If Obama becomes president (unlikely), I imagine he’d use president-speak like all opitions are on the table while he worked behind the scenes to effectuate an operation like the one you describe. But right now Obama is a candidate and he should say these things. Jeez, if McCain or Giuliani said this, I would take exactly the same position.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs writes:
Hell, we probably run ops into Pakistan right now. Pakistan probably has a good idea that we are. We just aren’t talking about it out loud.
When we needed to use Pakistani airspace to get into Afghanistan after 9/11, a ferocious behind-the-scenes arm-twisting was delivered to Musharraf, and he readily agreed to allow a Western country the use of the airspace of a Muslim country to invade another Muslim country. There was no public posturing or foot-stomping anywhere near it. In fact, Obama’s statement has an immediate negative impact on his ability to get Pakistani cooperation should he, by some horrible twist of fate, actually get elected president.

And there’s no question that the Afghanistan-Pakistan border through those mountains is a fuzzy zone into which certain of our forces could make their way without anyone talking about it. For deeper incursions, cooperation would be required. But there are still other ways to go for special needs.

I also pointed out a while back that al Qaeda mountain encampments and bin Laden himself could be simply left alone, with purpose.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Shaughnessy writes:
[Obama] is running for president.
So is Dennis Kucinich. The difference between them being that Dennis seems marginally more alert. For instance, I don’t think that Dennis would say that 10,000 people had been killed by a tornado in Kansas when the actual death toll was 12 and then blame the mistake on being tired.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Just an FYI, on Wednesday Hillary Clinton something similar, and it is being reported by some that she agreed with Obama’s statement – though that’s not exactly how I read it.

Shaughnessy, you don’t see any difference between these two positions, I take it? I appreciate your straightforward answer to my question in the other thread though, and the consistency you show here when you say Jeez, if McCain or Giuliani said this, I would take exactly the same position. With that kind of consistency, I can disagree your opinion respectfully.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
With that kind of consistency, I can disagree your opinion respectfully.
Fair enough. I haven’t seen Clinton’s statement and I have to run. But I’ll look at it later. BTW: Hillary is the one Republicans should be worried about, not Obama. She is going to be the next president (against my wishes).
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
David, if he’s running for president and wants to be taken seriously he shouldn’t spike his own guns.

This does make it less likely that he’d get cooperation from Pakistan. It was an insult. The Pakistani government has no choice but to act tough and that might even hurt Bush’s ability to get cooperation from Pakistan.

This isn’t rocket science. If he’s trying to sell himself as this person who would be so smart about foreign policy and rely so much on diplomacy then he should demonstrate at least a basic ability to not piss people off.

You know, Kerry did the same thing. Remember him announcing that Allawi was a "puppet?" He said that, apparently thinking it would matter not at all once he became president that he’d undermined our allies during his campaign. It was like his remarks were in the domestic compartment and had nothing to do with the international relations compartment. (Like a small kid explaining why he can’t eat more vegetables but still has room for desert.)

Obama has done the same sort of thing... given a speech to Americans to try to get himself elected and because he was talking to Americans seems to figure that it’s nicely compartmentalized. He seems not to be alone, David, since you seem to think so as well.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Synova writes:
You know, Kerry did the same thing.
That and and he allowed himself to be seen in public wearing spandex, which I think lost him Ohio right there.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
which I think lost him Ohio right there.
Good. It lost me my eyesight for a couple of days. I’m glad he was punished...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I don’t understand your objection to what Obama said. If we learn that bin Laden or other senior AQ leaders are in Pakistan — or anywhere else for that matter — we should kill or capture them. These Islamofacists attacked us on our soil and killed 3,000 civilians. If we doubt the commitment of the nation harboring the Islamofacists, we must do it ourselves. I don’t care who likes it. What is the problem?
I don’t know. I mean, we’d just be launching an attack on a nation armed with nuclear weapons. I can’t see how anything could possibly go wrong with that.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
The problem with Obama saying that stuff is that he knows we are already doing, it but he wants to score cheap national security points by looking tough.

For a guy who grew up in a nationalist, somewhat anti-American, Islamic country I’d expect more nuance on this.

Also, it seems to me that people who didn’t like Bush’s "Dead or Alive" or "Bring ’em on" lines have no problem with Obama’s similar tough talk. Why is that?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Also, it seems to me that people who didn’t like Bush’s "Dead or Alive" or "Bring ’em on" lines have no problem with Obama’s similar tough talk. Why is that?
Cynically, I believe it’s like those who thought Joe Lieberman was a GREAT guy for integrating his faith into the 2000 Campaign, even as they excoriated the hate-filled God-bags of the Evangelical Right...because Joe was one of them, and they knew that at the end of the day he wasn’t really going to anything with his faith that was going to hurt them. So too Obama, this is all a charade and his supporters know that Obama is just saying this to sound tough, but they know he won’t ever be doing anything. Bush, or Rudy or Fred, yes if they said it people would believe them and take them at their word and so it is a or would be a cause for alarm, but Obama, no, no one believes this is anything more than a campaign ploy. (Please note I don’t endorse this idea of Obama’s, but I think it explains why there is a relative silence from some.)
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Also, it seems to me that people who didn’t like Bush’s "Dead or Alive" or "Bring ’em on" lines have no problem with Obama’s similar tough talk. Why is that?
I applauded Bush’s "dead or alive" comment, I was appalled at Bush’s "bring ’em on" statement. Tough talk is one thing, taunting the enemy to come kill someone that Bush sent into combat while he was safely at home with Secret Service protection is a different thing entirely. When he made that comment, the Shrek movie was popular, and since then, when I watch Bush I occasionally find myself thinking of Lord Farquad saying, "Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make".

Here is what GWB said about the Pakistan scenario...
Asked Friday by reporters if the U.S. needs permission to strike inside Pakistan if bin Laden is located there, Bush said, "All I can tell you is that when Osama bin Laden is found, he will be brought to justice. And that’s what we’ve continually discussed. I think, as the president said, we are in the hunt together against these people."

Musharraf said he was puzzled that people seem concerned about "the semantics of the tactics of how to deal with the situation. We will deal with it. We are in the hunt together."

Bush told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good information on the fugitive al Qaeda leader’s location. "Absolutely," the president said.
So which is it, "absolutely", or if Pakistan gives us permission?

Watch this video and tell me how the Bush Administration’s publically acknowledged policy differs from what Obama said. Oh yeah, Obama is a Democrat, I see.

Cap



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I don’t understand your objection to what Obama said. If we learn that bin Laden or other senior AQ leaders are in Pakistan — or anywhere else for that matter — we should kill or capture them. These Islamofacists attacked us on our soil and killed 3,000 civilians. If we doubt the commitment of the nation harboring the Islamofacists, we must do it ourselves. I don’t care who likes it. What is the problem?
I don’t know. I mean, we’d just be launching an attack on a nation armed with nuclear weapons. I can’t see how anything could possibly go wrong with that.
Musharraf has effectively ceded tribal Pakistan to bin Laden and AQ. Are you suggesting that we don’t have the right to attack those who have already attacked us (and are planning to do so again) because they’ve been given a safe harbor in a nation with nuclear weapons? That is preposterous. Yes, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons make things more complicated but surely you aren’t suggesting we are unable to defend ourselves. We are at war with AQ; they have attacked us (I can’t believe I have to say this here.)
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
We have the *right* to defend ourselves and act in our national interest in a unilateral manner.

We even have the right to project our intentions and piss off our potential allies and destabilize governments in the interest of appearing tough for the electorate.

Because we’ve got the right to be stupid doesn’t mean we should.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Wulf:

I read the Clinton-Obama assessment at your blog. I generally agree with your assessment of the Democratic race. It is clearly Hillary’s nomination to lose, and it’s not likely she’ll do that since she is a total control freak. I think Clinton is saying more-or-less what Obama is saying with regard to bin Laden/AQ in Pakistan. Of course, I simply can’t understand why anybody would say anything else.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
"So which is it, "absolutely", or if Pakistan gives us permission?"

It is... diplomacy.

It’s giving Pakistan a fig leaf because it’s a simple enough thing to do and in our interests to do so.

Bush gets criticized for being a bully and throwing our weight around yet even he is more careful about the sensibilities of other nations than Obama is.

Are people (like me) critical of Obama because he’s a Democrat?

Maybe. But I’d be every bit annoyed if Giuliani announced his intentions of ignoring the government of Pakistan. The question is, would he?
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
We have the *right* to defend ourselves and act in our national interest in a unilateral manner.

We even have the right to project our intentions and piss off our potential allies and destabilize governments in the interest of appearing tough for the electorate.

Because we’ve got the right to be stupid doesn’t mean we should.
I do not understand how incapacitating (killing or capturing) the Islamofacists behind 9/11 is anything other than a proper goal of American foreign policy. I don’t think it’s "stupid," election or no election. If it is done, it should be done intelligently. If that’s your point, I agree. Obama didn’t say he would "ignore" the government of Pakistan; he said that if they didn’t act, we would. And I absolutely do not agree that we are precluded from attacking the people at war with us. Not under any circumstances.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
BTW: I think this whole discussion vividly illustrates the wasteful insanity of partisan politics in this country today. It’s as if people have completely flipped sides just because someone in the oppostion party is saying something.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
It’s as if people have completely flipped sides just because someone in the oppostion party is saying something.
Uh, not unless you’re able to prove pre-invasion Iraq was a US ally.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sarcastic writes:
So which is it, "absolutely", or if Pakistan gives us permission?
If you read the excerpt that you posted just before you asked that question, you can see that it’s both. When there is an absolute need to go into Pakistan, Musharraf already knows that there is an "offer he can’t refuse" out there, and the thing will go down. That’s something that comes off behind serious diplomatic spadework.

On the other hand, all of that might be for the media, and third ways have quite possibly been worked out to cover most needs.

One of those third ways could be specially trained Pakistani units with CIA help, a model used with elements of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan even prior to the arrival of U.S. forces there.

But I’ll repeat again that the array of strategies could include leaving al Qaeda encampments in those regions, and even bin Laden himself, alone, with purpose.

You can’t announce something like that, for a number of reasons.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
It’s as if people have completely flipped sides just because someone in the oppostion party is saying something.
Uh, not unless you’re able to prove pre-invasion Iraq was a US ally.
Oh, please. The two situations are not remotely comparable. First, Iraq did not attack us; AQ did. Second, who has proposed "invading" Pakistan? Third, whether Pakistan is indeed an ally is still an open question. Fourth, the doomsday scenarios about the Islamic uprising in Pakistan should we kill bin Laden seems farfetched at best.

But none of that was my point. My point is that it is absolutely bizarre to hear staunch Bush policy defenders saying that our national defense — i.e., killing those at war with us — should be subservient to good international etiquette. To be fair, I imagine the opposite is going on at Democratic-oriented websites, where those who have criticized everything Bush has said and done foreign-policy wise are now applauding the show of defiant strength by one of their own. But again, that just proves my point that poisonous partisanship has now infected even our national defense discussions.

(Good to hear from you, McQ.)
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
If you read the excerpt that you posted just before you asked that question, you can see that it’s both.
I thinked you may have nuanced yourself over the edge.

It cannot be both, either unilateral action without Pakistan’s approval is on the table, or it is not.

Obama says it is.

Bush says it is.

Biden says it is.

Clinton says it is.

Giuliani will say it is if asked.

None of the candidates would say that we will take the possibility of acting without Pakistan’s approval off the table.

Forget the hedging, the Bush Administration has made it clear that it would prefer to act in concert, or with the approval of the Pakistani government, as Obama has, but both have made it clear that if we have a good shot, we WILL ABSOLUTELY take if we WANY to, regardless of whether Pakistan allows it.

There was more to my previous, specifically the video of a Bush Administration offical laying out our policy, which is to work Pakistan, but includes unilateral action if Pakistan will not cooperate.

It’s been said out loud by the Administration... but when it was said out loud, I do not recall a blog post entitled "But we’re against "unilaterally" invading other countries, aren’t we?".

If we did take this sort of action, it would not be analogous to the Iraq invasion, as McQ wants to pretend, but rather a much milder version of Afghanistan, where rather than take out the government while we attempted to take out the very people who planned and initiated an attack on US soil that killed 3000 Americans, we would try to just take out the terrorists and let the government be. Regardless, if we had cause to invade Afghanistan for harboring UBL, and we determine that Pakistan is providing safe harbor for UBL, the same logic would apply. But being that Pakistan is nuclear, and Afghanistan barely had electricity, there would obviously be a greater pause for diplomacy to work.

But virtually everyone who has been asked has given the same answer.

What answer would you give to this question?

WOuld you say, out loud, that under no circumstances would we act without the explicit approval of the Pakastani government? That would be poor diplomacy.

I favor the tactic of telling them that we would prefer to work together, but that if they don’t cooperate, we could initiate unilateral action. This is a much better incentive to find a way to cooperate than allowing them to dictate the terms by taking unilateral action off the table.

This is just pure unadulterated Republican slanted partisanship, nothing libertarian about it.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Oh, please. The two situations are not remotely comparable.
Ah, you caught the point ... how unusual.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ah, you caught the point ... how unusual.
And you completely missed mine. How typical.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
And you completely missed mine. How typical.
Actually I completely ignored it. If you can’t even understand the argument in the first place, I certainly see no reason to read the rest of your comment.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Actually I completely ignored it. If you can’t even understand the argument in the first place, I certainly see no reason to read the rest of your comment.
Oh, I understand all right. You are a Republican now. And you are running Republican website. Perhaps you don’t like to hear non-Republican voices. If that’s the case, please tell me and I won’t bother you with my thoughts.
If you can’t even understand the argument in the first place, I certainly see no reason to read the rest of your comment.
BTW, that’s a pretty good trick. Not reading my comment, yet knowing what I do or don’t understand.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Sarcastic, apparently unable to read the things he posts, posted this news item:
Asked Friday by reporters if the U.S. needs permission to strike inside Pakistan if bin Laden is located there, Bush said, "All I can tell you is that when Osama bin Laden is found, he will be brought to justice. And that’s what we’ve continually discussed. I think, as the president said, we are in the hunt together against these people."

Musharraf said he was puzzled that people seem concerned about "the semantics of the tactics of how to deal with the situation. We will deal with it. We are in the hunt together."

Bush told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good information on the fugitive al Qaeda leader’s location. "Absolutely," the president said.
Paragraph one: Bush does not answer the "needs permission" question and refers to Musharraf and that "we are in the hunt together." I.E., the diplomatic ground has bee laid.

Paragraph two: "We are in the hunt together."

Paragraph three: "Absolutely" in the aforesaid context that "we are in the hunt together" with Pakistan.

And this:
None of the candidates would say that we will take the possibility of acting without Pakistan’s approval off the table.
Not taking something off the table is not that same as making a positive declaration that you will do it without the cooperation of your ally.

That’s only "nuanced over the edge" if you don’t get the diplomacy involved.

Again, in exigent circumstances see how Bush handled getting Musharraf to allow the use of Pakistani airspace for the invasion of Afghanistan. The diplomat sent to see Musharraf (Armitage, I believe) made an offer he couldn’t refuse, but there was no public embarrassment of Musharraf. Indeed, the only person to ever mention it was Musharraf, in his memoir.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Oh, I understand all right. You are a Republican now. And you are running Republican website. Perhaps you don’t like to hear non-Republican voices. If that’s the case, please tell me and I won’t bother you with my thoughts.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
McQ, I have no idea what your point is. Nevertheless, it’s your blog. Just say the word and I’m out of here.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Just say the word and I’m out of here.
No ... stay, enjoy. I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to comment. The fact that you feel you have something significant to contribute is why we have a comment section. The fact that I don’t share your enthusiasm about the significance of your contribution shouldn’t deter you in the least.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ:

I won’t be posting here anymore. It’s become too partisan for my taste. Thanks for your hospitality over these months. I wish you the best.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
It’s become too partisan for my taste...
Really? Might want to review your own commentary during that period to understand why.

Good luck finding whatever in the world it is for which you’re looking.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Good Day Sir" Is how Dave ought to ahve ended that one, I believe.

Well McQ you bastiche I see you’ve driven ANOTHER off! And I bet you’ll miss him now that he’s gone......have you NO remorse, have you no shame, sir?!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Finally this site has become too partisan...isn’t he just saying, "You guys didn’t agree with me!" I never saw Dave Shaughnessy as a dis-passionate academic interested in exploring all sides of an issue. He had a PoV, and now he finds it uncomfortable that this site has a PoV? I just think that translates into, "I’m leavin’ y’all were mean to me" i.e. "You didn’t agree with me and worse yet, you made cogent arguments against me." Not that the arguments were sufficient to convert Dave, but that they were cogent enough that he didn’t feel it worth his while to persevere. As you say I hope he finds what he was looking for, a bunch of stupid gullible war supporters that read and argue on a 4th grade level, that he can easily and handily defeat.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
This particular post is extremely partisan, not in the ideological philosophy way of being partisan, but in the "when Democrats say the essentially the same thing as Republicans it is all of a sudden a bad thing" way of being partisan.

Tony Snow could have written this post. (It would not be less hypocritcal, it’s just that’s what we expect from A WH Press Secretary)

I have posted some quoted from George Bush, as well as video of an Administration official laying out the White House policy on Pakistan.

The Bush quotes have been parsed, and the video has been ignored.

The fact is that the Bush administration has said OUT LOUD in PUBLIC that it would act without approval if they Pakistan were not cooperative and they had a an opportunity to strike.

And yet, you people are still splitting hairs.

Between Bush and Obama, only one of them has invaded two sovereign nations, so calling Obama some kind of loose cannon for just SAYING this is really ridiculous.

This site has always leaned Republican, for me that was part of the attraction, but it’s been changing recently, and I am find it more and more like Free Republic every day, including the increasing frequency of pure name calling and piling on.

I’m on no position to tell anyone how to run their blog, God knows I don’t have the patience to do this, but would the suggestion of a little introspection be out of line?



Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Shaughnessy thought he could score some cheap points against a bunch of, what was the words he continued to use - oh yeah, Bushbots! That and a love for the term "FUBAR" really put him in a league all by his ownself!

Cap, when you put your two cents into the debate, it is at least with some sense of logic that is behind your words. I may not agree but I respect the logic that you put behind the words. The only logic that came from the dearly departed irishman was an attempt to paint all of us neocons into the hell he thought we so we richly deserve. I will miss him, not for the logic of his comments. I will miss him for the bullseye he conveniently painted on his *ss with every comment he made.

Now, if we could only do something about that Erb guy!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
This particular post is extremely partisan, not in the ideological philosophy way of being partisan, but in the "when Democrats say the essentially the same thing as Republicans it is all of a sudden a bad thing" way of being partisan.
Ah, I see. So I should have not written about something I thought was irresponsible because Cap might think it was ’extremely partisan’, is that it?
Tony Snow could have written this post. (It would not be less hypocritcal, it’s just that’s what we expect from A WH Press Secretary)
Oh, heaven forbid ... I’m crushed, crushed I tell you.

Why again is it ’hypocritical’? I assume you’ll be able to dig up, somewhere, where I’ve ever been for using our miitary force in the country of an ally without their permission, won’t you?
I’m on no position to tell anyone how to run their blog, God knows I don’t have the patience to do this, but would the suggestion of a little introspection be out of line?
Well I’ve always been of the belief that it’s much easier to be a food critic than a chef, so I take the critiques here with a grain of salt (see, no mixed metaphors there).

However, I’d suggest your misperceptions do not require me to do introspection but that may be something you might wish to undertake instead.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sarcastic writes:
Between Bush and Obama, only one of them has invaded two sovereign nations, so calling Obama some kind of loose cannon for just SAYING this is really ridiculous.
Obama isn’t a loose cannon, he’s just as dumb as a toad.

Indeed, the U.S. Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force against both Afghanistan and Iraq. Sometimes, however, a president needs to be able to use force in an exigent circumstance or to deal with a collateral matter and to do so without a Congressional vote (or even the approval of the UN!).

The point of this discussion is the shallow understanding that Obama has specifically of the extremely difficult situation we have with an ally, Pakistan, that does not have full control of its own territory and is a very troubled country. WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

In fact, it was the head of that country’s nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, who shopped nuclear science around the Muslim world until we caught him and put an end to it. But you might want to notice that we did not pound the table and riduicule or threaten Pakistan, because it does not have full control of its own territory and is a very troubled country. WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

So, the subtle and indirect language of diplomacy and the subtle and indirect language of force and statecraft are not small matters here. You need to know how to speak those languages to be president.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I, for one, am glad to see Mr. Shaughnessy go. He was all tell and no listen. So he did his guest tour and, having run out of expostulations, he departs. Better than no liberal comment at all, but leaving much to be desired. IMHO
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
does anyone seriously doubt that the US military hasn’t been operating pretty much with impunity in the waziristan region of Pakistan since September 11th? Obama’s speech really only put into words the actions that have been happening for the past six years...
 
Written By: Anonymous Soldier Recently In Paktika
URL: http://
"Written By: Anonymous Soldier Recently In Paktika"

- I call bullsh!t.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
So, the subtle and indirect language of diplomacy and the subtle and indirect language of force and statecraft are not small matters here. You need to know how to speak those languages to be president.
U.S. won’t bar attack on Qaeda in Pakistan
By Brian Knowlton

Sunday, July 22, 2007
WASHINGTON: The United States would consider using military force inside Pakistan if it identified key Qaeda targets there, a White House official said Sunday, prompting the Pakistani foreign minister to reject such talk as "irresponsible."

The official, Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser, told CNN that if the United States had "actionable targets, anywhere in the world," including Pakistan, then "we would pursue those targets."

"There are no options that are off the table," she said.
And what did Obama say...
"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."
This is not about nuance, this is pure partisan hypocrisy.

Bush Administration (the one’s with the ability to actually send troops NOW)says something, you folks don’t make a peep.

Obama (who can do nothing but talking for NOW) says the same thing, y’all go batsh*t.

I’m not interested in your response on this one, I have made my case.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider