Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Invade Pakistan? Gosh Rand, are you spinning for Hillary now?

In context, he said no such thing.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:46 AM

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:46 AM

Invade Pakistan? Gosh Rand, are you spinning for Hillary now? In context, he said no such thing.

Ok, this is what Obama actually said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. 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 an unveiled, publically uttered threat, Bill. THAT is the context. Spin it any way you want.

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 11:58 AM

No doubt the next administration will look for a way to declare victory in the war on terror - or at least create the illusion of progress and new ideas - while withdrawing from it.

I predict a treaty based on the Kyoto Accord, complete with similar exemptions for "developing countries" with thier own nuclear and missile programs.

And of course, "terror offsets".

Posted by Roger Strong at August 1, 2007 12:02 PM

Wow, when was the last time a presidential candidate suggested war with a nuclear armed opponent? Maybe he should suggest the formation of the Washington/New Delhi pact? Boy, that'd send Pakistan right into orbit.

Posted by Rod at August 1, 2007 12:23 PM

I've noticed that opponents of the war in Iraq are made queasy by the combat which is going on, but very eager to make new enemies. When we invaded Iraq, many asked "why not Saudi Arabia?" Now it's "why not Pakistan?"

So by attacking our allies, betraying the Iraqis, and befriending rogue states, we're supposed to _improve_ our reputation internationally? Conduct like that would have Canada fortifying the border and Japan building missiles.

Posted by Cambias at August 1, 2007 12:28 PM

Cambias:

That's b/c these folks disagree w/ Rummy so much. They want the war you WOULD LIKE, not the war you HAVE.

But rest assured, once the idea of going to war w/ Pakistan gathers steam, they'll be asking the same questions: Why not North Korea? Why not Zimbabwe?

It's like bumper stickers. Saw a set yesterday:

"Support the troops, end the war."
"Peace is the way"
"Save Darfur.org"

I wanted to ask them: Exactly how were you going to achieve the third one, if you're not prepared to actually wage war? Use foul language?

Posted by Lurking Observer at August 1, 2007 12:40 PM

Kayawanee, there are two paragraphs that exist before and after the paragraph you quote. To cherry pick that one paragraph out of context and demand an explanation is worthy of "the meaning of 'is'"

= = =

Sending regular troops to Pakistan would be bone-headed-ly stupid but only the Hillary-bots are saying that is what Obama said.

Raids into Waziristan? Been done already.

UAV targeted missile or JDAM attacks on an al Qaeda summit? Sounds a lot like current Bush policy, to me.

Except that actually eradicating AQ would dry up Shrub's only basis for popular support.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 12:42 PM

Except that actually eradicating AQ would dry up Shrub's only basis for popular support.

Bill, juvenile comments like this are why few here take you seriously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2007 01:10 PM

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 12:42 PM

Kayawanee, there are two paragraphs that exist before and after the paragraph you quote. To cherry pick that one paragraph out of context and demand an explanation is worthy of "the meaning of 'is'"

Are you kidding, Bill? Your talk about the Hillary-bots doing the spin thing is pure projection. I quoted the entire f*&king paragraph with no elipses. You need more context? Ok, here it is:

-Obama will provide military aid to Pakistan, but they must shut down the terrorists training camps.

-If they don't do that, we'll act on actionable data to launnch military strikes in Pakistan, without its permission.

-Obama will provide aid so that Pakistan can secularize.

That's the context. We'll help Pakistan, but if they don't do what we want, we'll launch attacks, WITHOUT permission into a nuclear armed, Muslim nation, one that has provided logistical support during our incursions into Afghanistan. Oh, and we'll invest in secularizing Pakistan.

And he issues this threat publicly.

Bill, do youself a favor, and stop trying to defend the nonsensical utterings of a young, naive candidate.

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 01:10 PM

One supposes that Obama should be forgiven for a lame attempt to prove that he's more of a man than Hillary Clinton. That's a really hard task.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at August 1, 2007 01:35 PM

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at August 1, 2007 01:35 PM

One supposes that Obama should be forgiven for a lame attempt to prove that he's more of a man than Hillary Clinton. That's a really hard task.

lol...you're good. Wish I'd thought of that.

Posted by at August 1, 2007 01:39 PM

Great snark, Mark. But it is based on what people are saying Obama said, not what Obama said.

And I also agree Hillary would be far more eager to use all those new Presidential powers (unitary executive theory, signing statements, secret wiertaps) than Obama and I guess that makes her more of a man in the Bush-ian sense than Obama.

Posted by at August 1, 2007 01:46 PM

When Bush was running for president in November 1999 as Obama is now, he was asked to name the president of Pakistan. He didn't know. That is serious naivete.

Posted by at August 1, 2007 01:49 PM

There's a difference between being unprepared on a topic, and being unprepared while making a statement on a topic.

I mean, if we're playing stump-the-contenders, it will be like fishing with grenades.

Posted by Al at August 1, 2007 02:14 PM

Posted by at August 1, 2007 01:49 PM

When Bush was running for president in November 1999 as Obama is now, he was asked to name the president of Pakistan. He didn't know. That is serious naivete.

Actually, it's not. That's more an example of ignorance rather than naivete.

While one can use the term "naive" to indicate a lack of information, ignorance is the better term to use when describing the state of not being aware of simple facts. The term "naive" is usually attributed to a lack of experience rather than a lack of simple knowledge.

For example, you displayed ignorance, rather than naivete, when you mischaracterized Bush's ignorance as naivete. =)

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 02:24 PM

"I wanted to ask them: Exactly how were you going to [save Darfur], if you're not prepared to actually wage war? Use foul language?"

"Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are."

Posted by KeithK at August 1, 2007 03:50 PM

First of all, there is nothing unschooled about Obama's comments about Pakistan. He was in fact repeating one side of current US policy under the Bush administration, as described just two weeks ago according to Tony Snow. Forbes magazine had this to say: "Asked whether US President George W Bush had ruled out US military action inside Pakistan, spokesman Tony Snow replied: 'We never rule out any options, including striking actionable targets.'" Now, a direct US attack in Pakistan is pretty hardline and may or may not be a good idea, but it certainly isn't "naive" in the sense that Rand Simberg said. In fact, since RS apparently didn't know that Tony Snow already said the same thing, he's the one being naive.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/07/19/afx3932056.html

Second, if Bush in 1999 didn't even know that Pervez Musharraf was the president of Pakistan (as he still is), yes that is ignorance rather than naivete. However, it was willful ignorance, because Bush was saying then that Clinton spent too much time on foreign policy. In light of 9/11, Bush's previous isolationism was greivously naive.

Moreover, Bush still doesn't care about the details of foreign policy and he's still naive. For instance, just last month he described Putin as a man you can trust. "Sometimes [Putin] says things I don't want to hear, but I know he's always telling me the truth," Bush said. The truth is that Putin is a thug at home and a bully on the continent who no one should trust. And what else would you expect from a KGB man? Putin has returned Bush's verbal favors by saying that America generally speaking is an enemy of Russia, but Bush personally is an exception.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-2.html

I don't know if Bush was sincerely naive in calling Putin trustworthy, or if maybe he was just lying. Either way it was bad. It was much worse than Obama's reiteration of what Tony Snow said about Pakistan, questionable though that saber-rattling may be.

Posted by at August 1, 2007 10:55 PM

"When Bush was running for president in November 1999 as Obama is now, he was asked to name the president of Pakistan. He didn't know. That is serious naivete."

Who was the president of Pakistan?

Posted by gbaikie at August 2, 2007 04:25 AM

According to Wikipedia, Musharraf took power in Oct of 99, though he didn't declare himself president until June 2001.

So in answer the the question, the President of Pakistan in Nov 99 was Rafiq Tarar, though Musharraf was essentially running things.

Not a simple answer.

Posted by Tom at August 2, 2007 05:45 AM

Posted by at August 1, 2007 10:55 PM

Jeez, dude! Do you even read the articles to which you link? The next paragraph is far more illustrative of Bush policy than the one you quoted. It's as follows:

Asked whether Bush would first seek authorization from Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, Snow told reporters: 'Those are matters that are best not discussed publicly.'

Best not discussed publicly. Keep your adversaries guessing. Don't reveal your intentions publicly. This is referred to as playing your cards close to your chest. It's what separates a professional from a rank amateur, the schooled from the unschooled, and the experienced from the naive.

Posted by kayawanee at August 2, 2007 06:54 AM

Had Fred Thompson said the same thing re. Pakistan, Rand would be Oohing and Aahing and effusive in his praise for Thompson's clarity .

Unfortunately Obama is in the wrong party, so it must be naive by definition.

Posted by Offside at August 2, 2007 07:12 AM

So when rational arguments fail Offside turns to clairvoyance.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 2, 2007 07:43 AM

Had Fred Thompson said the same thing re. Pakistan, Rand would be Oohing and Aahing and effusive in his praise for Thompson's clarity

What ARE you smoking?

Posted by CJ at August 2, 2007 09:35 AM

No clairvoyance needed Cecel. After all, the next president has to be at least as skilled Cheney with a team as experienced as that which was around President Bush after 9/11 if only because the scale of the responsibility is so great and the need for clear thinking so profound. The people diseased with BDS, such as myself, will never get this, but the country is extraordinarily blessed to have had President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their senior aides during these first few years of a very long war,even if the major part of that war was aimed at the wrong country.

Posted by Offside at August 2, 2007 09:40 AM

Not a simple answer.

You're right Tom, I misstated the question. What Chris Hillar actually asked Bush in November 1999 was, "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?" Bush's answer was, "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?" So he clearly could not name General Pervez Musharraf.

Which is a pity, because it indicated that Bush paid no attention to international news and otherwise had no interest in the threat from Islamism and Islamic terrorism. That year, in 1999, Musharraf instigated the Kargil War with India. The war destablizied the Pakistani government, which enabled Musharraf to take power in a coup just the previous month, in October. Moreover, the conflict between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region had long been fueled with Islamic terrorism sponsored by Pakistan.

Not to mention that Pakistan was and is the only Islamic nuclear power, having tested the bomb the previous year, in 1998. And it has spread nuclear technology to other countries.

So what Bush should have known was that Musharraf is a military dictator who has his hands dirty with both Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation. And it's not clear that Bush understands the point even now, 8 years later. Because, as people have repeated here, he likes to call Pakistan a "key ally" in the war on terrorism. That is a euphemism for the painful truth, which is mostly that Musharraf has been bribed and pressured to stop doing bad things. I agree that it's key; overthrowing Musharraf would be a really bad idea. But Obama is completely right that the US needs to pay more attention to Pakistan.

Posted by at August 2, 2007 09:46 AM

In fact, since RS apparently didn't know that Tony Snow already said the same thing, he's the one being naive.

Rand, Naive? That's impossible. He's a self avowed non-Republican, non-conservative, but it is incorrect to therefore deduce that he is a Democrat. So of course he can't be naive.

Posted by Offside at August 2, 2007 09:55 AM

He's a self avowed non-Republican, non-conservative, but it is incorrect to therefore deduce that he is a Democrat. So of course he can't be naive.

Was this supposed to make any sense at all?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 2, 2007 10:25 AM

Posted by Offside at August 2, 2007 09:55 AM

In fact, since RS apparently didn't know that Tony Snow already said the same thing, he's the one being naive.

You're quoting someone, who is wrong on the facts. Tony Snow did not say the same thing. That was a bit of misinformation by our anonymous poster "posted by".

This is what was reported from the article to which he linked:

Asked whether Bush would first seek authorization from Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, Snow told reporters: 'Those are matters that are best not discussed publicly.'

The administration's position was to play the cards close. Obama's position is to publicly let the world know that we will attack positions in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's permission. Obama didn't misspeak in a Q&A session. This wasn't an off the cuff remark. This is the unqualified position of a major presidential candidate.

Snow's position exhibits caution and wisdom, even when under fire from reporters' questions. Obama's position exhibits planned bluster and naivete.

Rand, Naive? That's impossible. He's a self avowed non-Republican, non-conservative, but it is incorrect to therefore deduce that he is a Democrat. So of course he can't be naive.

Sarcasm plays poorly from someone who is wrong on the facts.

Posted by kayawanee at August 2, 2007 10:45 AM

Obama's ideas about foreign policy are as horrible as Kerry's were in '04.

Makes it likely he'll be their candidate ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at August 2, 2007 11:12 AM

This thread is like the Holy Grail of proof that liberals don't believe in an objective reality. They get to decide if Rand would like this Obamanation if only the mystical Fred Thompson had uttered it. They cry foul based on context, only to be confronted by the complete context, then start running down the usual rat-holes of "well, he's just doing what X did first," and "you wouldn't complain if Antonio Bolonio did it..." Why not simply argue that BHO's new strategy to win the War on Terror is to fight our friends and surrender to our foes? It's bold, it's never been tried (by anyone but the French), and it's what the left really wants to do anyway. OK, so I don't really believe that last bit...I just had a lot of fun putting it in writing.

Posted by Gunga at August 2, 2007 12:29 PM

"it's what the left really wants to do anyway"

Don't be too dismissive of that comment. There is a deep strain of nihilism and self-loathing in the American left. The "why do they hate us" crowd of late 2001 offers a useful example of such thinking.

Loving America (i.e. patriotism) requires both acknowledging our faults and celebrating our strengths. The latter tends to be in remarkably short supply among a great deal of the left.

PS: For the reading comprehension impaired -- I am NOT applying this to all self-identified leftists. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, ignore it.

Posted by MG at August 2, 2007 01:02 PM

Why does it matter whether George Bush, governor of Texas, knew the name of the leader of Pakistan? Isn't it lots more important that he knew that he didn't know, and that he would have to if he became President, and that he better know some competent people to appoint to State and Defense to get that information for him?

Which is, of course, what actually happened.

This strange idea from the grade-point-average obsessed left that the best President is the one who wins at the "history" section of Trivial Pursuit is really odd. A President is the nation's general, not all master sergeants rolled into one. He's responsible for vision, grand strategy, keeping things on track. Detail is the job of his staff. Indeed, the more detail he has to know, the more likely he is to lose focus. Presidents Clinton and Carter were wonderful detail men, knew all kinds of stuff at amazingly levels of detail. But neither could keep his eye on the ball, with disastrous results for the nation.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 2, 2007 03:11 PM

There have been incursions in Pakistan, before in 2002 & 2003; for Ramzi bin al Shibh, a Yemeni member of the Hamburg cell, and KSM the planner behind 9/11. Then there was the capture of Abu
Hassan al Liby, back in 2005, the death of Hamza
Rabia later that year,(this was around the time of the purported raid referred in the NY Times and an attempt against Al Zawahiri; that netted
two regional commanders in Bajaur province; that's right off the top of my head.

Posted by narciso at August 2, 2007 06:47 PM

And they all happened with the tacit or public approval of the pakistani government, either before or afterwards and with sweeteners applied as needed.

That's a lot more diplomatic and effective in the current situation than publically stating "... launch military strikes in Pakistan, without its permission.".

Posted by Habitat Hermit at August 2, 2007 10:01 PM

A GOP candidate for president, having said the same thing regarding attacks on Pakistani soil, wouldn't he/she be labeled a "cowboy"?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 3, 2007 05:32 AM

Bill White thinks that the US will be in Iraq after 08. I've pointed out that every Dem candidate has promised to get the US out as soon as possible and asked if they're wrong or lying and what the answer tells us about their fitness to be president. White ducked that question until recently when he claimed that quick withdrawl wasn't actually their stated positions.

Let's start with Obama. From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met."

Is he lying, wrong, or both? What does that answer tell us about his fitness to be president?

Posted by at August 3, 2007 08:54 AM

What Obama said was indirectly meant to invade Pakistan, though I too believe that Pakistan is a biggest training point for most of the terror groups for so long years.But You cannot barely attack, invade the country for that reason, that too when you are in the deep criticize stand from both inside and outside of the country...
conservatories north east

Posted by Peter at August 4, 2007 04:01 AM

Post a comment