Obama was reamed by DU when he warned about Pakistan....

[zanne]

No idea about foreign policy, huh? "Warmonger", huh? Read on.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

[Sparkly]

1. In fairness, that was an entirely different hypothetical.

I don't think attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan would have averted Bhutto's assassination. (Do you?)

[zanne]

3. DUH......Yes, I do. nt

[atreides1]

9. You Have Proof

Do you have proof that it was Al Qaeda that was responsible for this attack? If you know of something, other then your personal suspicions that would help authorities?

I'm not saying that it wasn't Al Qaeda, but she had many enemies, including Musharraf!

The suspects are many, now all that needs to be done is to find out who actually did it.

[zanne]

16. Musharaf has been getting cozy with Al Qaeda.

Or hadn't you heard?

[MNDemNY]

25. That's as bad as saying Sadam was "cozying "up to al qaeda.

They are really not on the same page. Not even the same book.

[KaptBunnyPants]

36. You are totally wrong.

Saddam hated al qaeda and never tolerated it's presence. Musharrif turned a blind eye as the leadership of the organization crossed over into his country, and he's been protecting them ever since. He is nothing like Saddam, who may have been a bastard, but was never an impediment to our dealing with al qaeda.

[SoxFan]

4. What it demonstrated...

was Obama's ability to see the current Pakistani regime for what it is, an anti-democratic slaughterhouse that coddles the religious extremists.

[Sparkly]

11. I think the question was whether or not to send troops in.

Not so much about how different candidates "see" the situation, and more about whether or not a US invasion, to attack Al Qaeda, would be justified.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his position on military involvement.

[ClarkUSA]

28. See reply #26 for what it also demonstrated about Obama's non-conventional foreign policy

:toast:

[ClarkUSA]

6. It certainly may have...

But we'll never know now, will we?

[babylonsister]

10. Valid question; depends on who killed her. Was it henchmen

of Musharraf, and are they al Qaeda? I grant you, I'm ignorant about what's happening in Pakistan.
I do know the blivet supported Musharraf when he declared martial law. I do know Bhutto was very popular. I think I know that this is going to get a lot uglier. By design, and whether our 'leaders' are involved, I don't know.

[Sparkly]

13. She was "very popular" among some; hated by others. nt

[babylonsister]

15. Well, seeing as she was just murdered, yes, I guess

there were people who didn't like her. She was in exile for years, and I've heard she was pretty fatalistic; I guess after the last attempt, she must have known her days were numbered.

[SoxFan]

2. K&R

Interesting how Lil Dog, the candidate of experience and nuance, couldn't figure out that the Musharraf regime is a corrupt, evil monstrosity.

[xultar]

5. Who didn't already know about Pakistan being fucked. Bush is president.

It was bound to be fucked up.

[NWHarkness]

7. Just Stop It

This is a tragedy, and all any of you can do is turn it into another petty squabble. Disgusting.

[zanne]

14. I guess I should have waited five more minutes...

Or, until there's so much information and spin out there that this thread would go down like a stone. Shame on me? I'm sure you had a thought or two about how this would affect your candidate when you heard about it. O8)

[Cha]

32. Like I told Jefferson..

don't worry about the critics..just keep posting, zanne.

The holier than thou types can just sit back and know they tried to stop the information from flowing on a political board when a world crisis occurs.

[zanne]

39. Thanks, zidzi!

FIRED UP!

[Cha]

42. And that's good for us..

Thanks, again, zanne!~

[Zynx]

8. Shame on you.

If you don't know why, there is no hope.

[zanne]

24. Sure. I'll slap my face right now, for you have made me see the light. nt

[Jim__]

12. Obama didn't "warn" about Pakistan. He threatened to launch attacks in Pakistan.

A different and foolhardy thing. There is a very easy way to say we are going after al Qaeda in Pakistan without undermining Musharraf. Undermining Musharraf when there is at least 20 months before he can actually do anything was quite pointless. He did nothing to enhance our position in the world, or in Pakistan.

[oasis]

17. Jim thanks for setting the record straight.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

27. No, he just mouthed a fearmongering Clintonian talking point. See #26 for the FACTS.

Not that you're interested.

[chascarrillo]

19. Obama undermined a dictator?

Oh dear, he really is green in re: foreign policy, isn't he?

:eyes:

However, bringing up interparty politics at this time is really not classy. Yeah, next time OP, do give it rest.

[Jim__]

29. Bush also undermined a dictator when he overthrew Saddam Hussein.

But it made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer place. Same thing will happen if the dictator Musharraf is overthrown by terrorists.

[zanne]

21. But this assassination will make things more stable?

Do you really think Musharaff won't be "undermined" now? Our ally has just been killed and Musharaff has been ignoring Al Quaeda in the north. I don't know about you, but I think I can put two and two together.

[Jim__]

30. Well go ahead and put 2 and 2 together.

What the hell does Obama's statement have to do with this assassination, one way or the other?

[ClarkUSA]

26. Obama said the U.S. must be willing to strike al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Musharraf refused.

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

Funny how Samantha Power is on Obama's foreign policy team, eh? Yeah, she's a real warmonger! :eyes:

If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend this memo from Power, a Harvard Professor and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama.
It is one of the best and potentially most important political documents I have read in some time:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/memo_power_on_cw_v_cwn.php

America is plagued by a self-anointed, highly influential, and insular so-called Foreign Policy Community which spans both political parties.
They consider themselves Extremely Serious and have a whole litany of decades-old orthodoxies which one must embrace lest one be declared
irresponsible, naive and unserious. Most of these orthodoxies are ossified 50-year-old relics from the Cold War, and the rest are designed to
place off limits from debate the question of whether the U.S. should continue to act as an imperial force, ruling the world with its superior
military power.

Most of the recent "controversies" involving Barack Obama's foreign policy statements -- including his oh-so-shocking statement that it would
not make moral or political sense to use tactical nuclear weapons to bomb isolated terrorist camps as well as his willingness to attack Al Qaeda
elements inside Pakistan if the Musharraf government refuses (as they did for some time) -- were not "controversial" among the Establishment
on the merits. They were "controversial" (and "naive" and "irresponsible") because they breached the protocols and orthodoxies imposed by the
Foreign Policy Community governing how we are allowed to talk about these issues.

This was vividly illustrated by the sharpest exchange from one the the earlier debates, where both Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd excoriated
Obama for his comments on Pakistan, not on the ground that Obama's statements were wrong on the merits (i.e, not that we should avoid
military action inside Pakistan under those circumstances), but instead on the ground that he committed the sin of actually discussing with
the American people what our foreign policy would be.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/08/powers/index.html

[Jim__]

33. Directly from the article cited in the OP.

This:

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

Directly supports my post.

[stillcool]

18. I hate this shit...

dissing somebody to pump up somebody else results with me defending the dissed. But countering trivial attacks by stipulating a candidate's willingness to bomb another country if some scenario seems plausible doesn't help matters. I guess it all boils down to..
Future
Events
Appear
Real

Do Obama supporters REALLY think that Obama will not be attacked by right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3891925&mesg_id=3891925

Obama supporters blindly trust the media
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3890962

[zanne]

23. Hypocrisy alert!

You write a post criticizing me for pointing out a valid fact, but then you go on to give us links criticizing Obama. Not persuasive.

[stillcool]

45. I wasn't criticizing you...

I was criticizing flinging shit...and politicians eagerness to bomb.

[suston96]

20. Our petty squabbles over my candidate, your candidate......

...are incomparable to the implications of what has happened in Pakistan - an "ally" with nuclear weaponry.

[BigDDem]

22. Wow, talk about a stretch

[TeamJordan23]

31. Iraq War caused US to take its eye off the ball. nm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. Tasteless, partisan and factually bogus. Perfect post.

[BringBigDogBack]

35. KR

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. oh my god, you are not using this horrific death for political gain?

[Caseman]

38. Obamanites need all the press coverage they can feed on...

:puke:

[zanne]

40. OMG--I must be evil!

I don't suppose it didn't occur to you that this could influence OUR elections? You must be an angel sent from heaven above.:sarcasm:

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. sarcasm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3893295

apparently it is only evil when Clinton does it.

[zanne]

43. I'll be watching your posts for hints of sarcasm, Evergreen.....

And I'll remind you of what you said. Bad, bad zanne!

[Skip Intro]

44. No other candidates words caused riots there. He threatened to violate Pakistan's sovereignty.

He said we should remove troops from Iraq and place them on the "right battlefields" such as Pakistan.

And this is offered as proof of his readiness to be the president of the most powerful nation on earth?

Please.