Raise your hands if you think we should let Musharraf knowingly shield Osama bin Laden, and refuse

[flpoljunkie]

to act when there is actionable intelligence to take him out.

Bush has already refused to act on such intelligence and let Osama bin Laden escape-- reportedly more than once. Remember Tora Bora?

[killbotfactory]

1. Maybe we can start a "Hands Off Al Qaeda" movement

Seems like it would be pretty popular.

[jillan]

4. Don't you think it would be better to attack Al Qaeda by surprise rather

than announcing it?

[killbotfactory]

8. You don't think Al-Qaeda expects an attack?

Does telling Al-Qaeda we are going after them at some point in the future really put us at such a disadvantage?

[sandnsea]

14. Obama has the ability to announce attacks?

Really??

Come on Pirhana. Get real. Don't you remember Kerry getting the hell beat out of him with words like "permission slip"? We don't need a replay of that with Hillary saying she won't go after terrorists without permission. Don't play into right wing nonsense, they're just trying to set all the candidates up so they can knock them down next year.

[acmavm]

2. Remember Pakistan's nuclear program? Well, Osama will be in charge

of it if we go over the border into Pakistan. Mushie's hold on the country is tenuous at best. So if radical fundies with nuclear weapons sounds good to you, well then keep on hoping for a foray into Pakistan by American troops.

[JANdad]

3. How about some diplomacy first

Before threatning and rushing off to invade a soveriegn...Jesus Keerist...I can not believe that I am writing about a DEM candidate...

[beachmom]

5. Invade? You're kidding me, right? That's not what he said.

He didn't say he was going to take over Pakistan. He said he would get the terrorists.

[killbotfactory]

10. And that is only if Pakistan refuses to act against them

[Ethelk2044]

9. He said Pressure not Invade get your facts straight

[JANdad]

19. If Mushariff

fails to act, we will...

Sounds an awful lot like GWB posturing against Sadam in the run-up to the Iraq invasion....show us the weapons or we will invade...

[earthlover]

18. Well, I don't know who that Keerist is but Obama said in the same speech

that we should use more diplomacy, and he did NOT say we should invade without diplomacy first. What ever gave you the idea he said THAT?

Come on, folks. We can support a candidate and we can attack their rivals. But it does little good to create straw men, and less good to create a circular firing squad among Democrats.

[PDJane]

6. Perhaps making sure that bin Laden really is

the "bad guy" before going about trying to kill him might be a good idea?

Just sayin'

[Mika]

7. Did anyone check Cheney's billion dollar bunker?

[aquart]

11. We've been doing it for six years. Has it made a difference?

[sandnsea]

12. Raise your hand if you can put your country over partisanship

Not even any takers on DU?? Wow. I'm shocked I tell ya.

Thanks, flpolunkie, for the very rational post.

[flpoljunkie]

16. You are most welcome, and thank you for your post, sandnsea!

[goodhue]

13. The term "actionable intelligence" is orwellian beltway military speak for bombing & killing people

It kind of bugs me that is has entered into political discourse as conventional wisdom, and is parroted by candidates allegedly promoting hope

[sandnsea]

15. al qaeda, bombing and killing al qaeda

Who are real and not a covert CIA operation.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Killing Al Qaeda

And yes, unfortunately, there will be a few civilian casualties, which I guess the Orwellian term is "collateral damage". Since we haven't really discovered a better way to hunt down our enemies, there's not much else we can do.

[SaveElmer]

17. Tora Bora...

Is in Afghanistan for one thing...so the comparison is not valid...

Second, Pakistan is a nuclear power with a very strong and vocal militant population...

If the U.S. unilaterally took military action inside Pakistan, all hell would break loose...with the best case scenario that the existing Government becomes essentially non-cooperative with us, and the worst being the government falls and these militants gain significant power...

Preannouncing in a political speech that you might conduct military action in a country like that, with the situation as it is, is simply stupid...

[earthlover]

20. Then you must think Hillary is stupid, because Hillary said today she would do the same thing!

Or aren't you Hillary folk pointing this out?

[SaveElmer]

21. If you are referring to this.,..

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

No she didn't

[earthlover]

24. No, I am referring to what Hillary said TODAY...not last week....

[SaveElmer]

25. Link?...nt

[earthlover]

27. This was quoted on NPR this afternoon on my drive home....

find your own link. You won't believe it anyway.

[SaveElmer]

28. Looked...couldn't find one...

If she actually said she would take unilateral action to get al_Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan...then I disagree with her...

I think it is stupid, in the context of a political campaign, to be talking about invading the sovereignty of another country with no cause for doing so...as Richardson says it inflames things unnecessarily...

[earthlover]

29. Oh, she said it alright. And it wasn't stupid. She used the word "kill" to emphasize

I believe Hillary showed great intelligence here. In response to Obama having said it first.

Since I am not a supporter yet of either, I am not afraid to point out a positive thing Hillary has said. Well, at least something that will not prevent her from winning.

[ripple]

40. The term 'unilateral' is meaningless in this instance

Hillary isn't my candidate, but I do believe that if she knew where bin laden happened to be located in Pakistan- and had 'actionable intelligence', in fact, she would deploy Special Operations troops to take him out in the middle of the night, with plenty of back-up. She wouldn't speak at the UN beforehand, or hold treaties with Musharraf if he should be uncooperative. Instead, she'd go get bin laden. I hope so, anyway.

I have confidence that Obama will do the same.

Unilateral is a term reserved for a full-scale invasion and that isn't something either candidate is talking about. Except for Hillary's use of the word itself, that is.

[flpoljunkie]

30. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports that both Hillary and Edwards agree with Obama

Hillary Clinton, or, "Bush-Cheney Lite," as Obama now calls her on the campaign trail, seems to agree with Obama:

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country." But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. "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," she said.

Update:
John Edwards also agrees.

Per NBC:

NBC's Lauren Appelbaum reports that Edwards, on the other hand, agreed with Obama, though admitted he didn't watch the speech or see a transcript.
"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can't do the job, then we have to do it."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/invade_pakistan_will_yer_harry_1.php

[earthlover]

33. Thanks for posting...

I thought I was going to get eaten alive by Hillary supporters for mentioning what Hillary said.

The problem...for the Hillary Supporters....is that Obama said it first. And if Obama said 2 + 2= 4, then it has to be WRONG!!!

No, it was right. Even if Obama said it. And Hillary said it. And Edwards said it.

Ok...some of our knees jerk. Now...does the cerebrum also work?

[flpoljunkie]

26. Obama said today Bush had the chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005, as well

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. -Barack Obama

[earthlover]

22. We don't need an amplifying echo chamber!

Obama made a lengthy speech today. I believe the transcript has already been posted. One of the points has gotten the most attention, and that is this stuff about Pakistan and Al Queda.

The same day, Hillary essentially said she would do the same thing in Pakistan as Obama said under similar circumstances.

There are several reasons both Hillary and Obama have said that they would track down bin Laden and those respsible for 9/11. One compelling reason is political. If either had taken the opposite position now, it would be total and absolute political suicide for the general election. Who is going to get elected president (not nominated, elected) if they can't unequivocally say they are going to track down the terrorists responsible for 9/11. If either Obama or Clinton had said anything different now, maybe to appeal to the pacifist wing, then...in October 2008, during the debates they will surely be forced to say it then. And if they equivocated now, they would be setting themselves up for the Republican nominee calling them the flip-flopper of the century! You can't win if you flip flop on bin Laden during the election debates. Impossible.

So thank God both Hillary and Obama said they wouldn't need permission slips from Pakistan to get bin Laden. If either had said anything different, they could be eliminated from serious contention and they may as well have resigned and given back their doners' money they hadn't spent.

I think most of us can see this. What I am frustrated about is the echo chamber here. Some, a vocal minority I believe, have chosen to distort what Obama said. I guess to score points. But that is so short-sighted.

We have to win in November to actually win. Remember that. If we beat up each other too badly, we might not win. The candidates are aware of this. They, I trust, have smart enough advisors to hold back before they go too far.

The point I am trying to make is that we, the blogosphere, should not amplify or distort what they are saying. We shouldn't put words in the mouth of our opponents, because we just might be starting a meme the Republicans can use against US if that candidate becomes the nominee. I am not saying don't criticize. But don't amplify what your rivals said. It is not becoming. And it is not effective.

[Nimrod2005]

23. Very effective reframe, thank you!

[Knightly_Knews]

31. You say this as if Bin Laden attacked us...

I thought Saddam attacked us.. What is all the fuss about? :sarcasm: But seriously, when and if we ever go after Bin Laden he has to be taken alive.. He knows too much, and the reason I think they aren't looking too hard to find him. He could have been captured in Tora Bora but we let him escape unscathed.

I think we need to start investigating some of the occupants of WTC 7 and others. See, if any Ex or Current Special Ops personnel were to be working in any of these buildings, pre-wired explosives could have been set by anyone. My guess is that the Mystery person/persons would have been absent from Ground Zero on 9/11.

We need proof that Bin Laden attacked us, before we execute him as we did Saddam. Who, in fact, held many secrets that could have been exposed were he alive today.

IMHO


Peace,
Knight!

P.S. Sorry to turn this into a CT thread but it had to be done. :)

[TheCentepedeShoes]

32. Perhaps Bushco should have

taken care of OBL when he was in Afghanistan instead of letting him get into Pakistan and put Musharraf in this postion in the first place.

Oh, silly me, that was the plan all along.

[jmp]

34. Pakistan doesn't have to have the option to refuse.

We have tons of leverage to us both unilaterally and multilaterally. Bombs are NOT the solution to every problem. That's the kind of thinking that got us into the mess in Iraq.

[MrSlayer]

35. We have to kill OBL and his boys wherever they are.

I thought everyone was on board with that. I don't think there is anyone who would just leave them alive.

[napi21]

36. Are you really sure Osama and al Qaida are IN Pakistan?

I don't believe ANY info this admin releases, and the "intelligence" they talk about is a oxymoron! Do you remember ANY suspicions, predictions, or "intelligence" they released in the last several years that has atually proven RIGHT? I can't think of any!

There is SOOOO much BS going on behind the secrecy screen that we don't know about, there's NO WAY I would agree to invade another Country. Even with a new Prez and completely new admin. I think it's going to take a very long time before info can actually be counted on as real!

[jmp]

37. Sure ... It's a slam dunk!

;)

[TeamJordan23]

38. Pakistan has not done enough. That is why there are assassination attempts every other month. nm

[zulchzulu]

39. Let's keep giving Musharraf lots of money and let him party like it's 1999

October 12, 1999...to be exact...

:sarcasm:

[sampsonblk]

41. Hand raised

Hard as it seems to fathom, there has to be a political accomodation before we go in there. You can't just go in a blow up a sovereign nation to get at Osama and his crowd. Six years after the attacks, this political accomodation should have been achieved already. We need a real Democrat to get in there with diplomacy and make it happen.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Special ops team doesn't mean blowing up a sovereign nation

[sampsonblk]

45. Special Ops team is illegal and an act of war.

If we want to go in, we need to get permission. Or at least an agreement to stand aside.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. If it's going to involve missles, we should probably get Musharraf on board

But if it's just having the special ops put a bullet in the guy's head, I honestly don't see the problem.