I guess Hillary Clinton and her supporters think we should let bin Laden go free...

[jackbourassa]

Because they are so "outraged" by Obama's comments.

Do any of you deny that in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan many terrorists hold refuge? Do you deny that the Taliban and bin Laden have found refuge there?

Do any of you deny that many elements of Pakistan's army and intelligence units are sympathetic to these terrorists in the northern tribal area.

So let me post this question to you. If we were to discover the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden in northern Pakistan (which again is most likely where he is) and the Pakistani government refused to help us apprehend him and/or kill him, what should our response be?

Should we, like George W. Bush in Tora Bora, just let him go free and escape? Or should we go and maybe launch a cruise missile up his ass in honor of the THREE THOUSAND INNOCENT FUCKING AMERICANS the prick unilaterally decided should die on September 11, 2001?

Obama never advocated any "regime change" in Pakistan or any other ridiculous neo-con strategy, Hillary Clinton once so strongly supported. He said, rightly, that we should protect and defend our interests. Getting bin Laden would definitely qualify there.

You all are so quick to attack Obama and denounce what he said, that you haven't spent the time to think through what it is you are actually saying.

The biggest hypocricy of all, of course, is the fact that Hillary so strongly supported a unilateral military invasion and toppling of a middle eastern country that had no participation in the Sept. 11 attacks, when she supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Yet now, this same person says we shouldn't even attack a KNOWN hideout of Osama bin Laden, because it might offend the Pakistani government?

What is wrong with this woman? Is EVERYTHING political to her?

[Nucular Terrorist]

1. "I guess Hillary Clinton and her supporters think we should let bin Laden go free"

I guess Hillary Clinton and her supporters think we should let bin Laden go free = You don't agree with me, you're a terr'ist supporter!

Bush supporters would be so happy with you right now.

[Bobbieo]

3. What makes anyone think bin Laden is still alive?

I think he is dead. If he is, then the bin Laden family knows it and so doestheir good buddies, the Bush family.

[jackbourassa]

15. Hey don't evade, answer my question...

If we knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, assuming he is alive, and the Pakistani government refused to help us "get him," should we "get him" ourselves?

It's an honest and fair question.

You're evading it.

[PBass]

54. For one thing, Obama shooting his mouth off about doing it, just wasn't a smart move.

Also, acting unilaterally is what Bush does. It's terrible foriegn policy. But if you're going to do it, don't brag about it way ahead of time.

I think Obama is getting some crap advice, or he is losing his composure.

[ripple]

29. I think you missed the OP's point

If Hillary wouldn't go into Pakistan to get bin laden unless Musharraf approves, it stands to reason that she would willing to let him walk.

I don't believe that's the case, BTW. I think she would do exactly what Obama would do- if the intelligence can point to where bin laden is, I think either one of them would deploy Special Operations units to take him out. As well they should.

[MADem]

2. She was outraged? What did she say? Did Edwards comment too? Anyone else? Got links? NT

[GOPS Worst Fear]

4. Don't Be Part of a Hyped Up Division in Our Party!

That IS the worse thing that can happen is for the Repukes to watch us at each others throats! It's all Hyped up garbage and something we don't need. The Dems are very fortunate to have so many great candidates I think..Now if only Gore would run...

[Nucular Terrorist]

5. Obama showed his true colors

That IS the worse thing that can happen is for the Repukes to watch us at each others throats! It's all Hyped up garbage and something we don't need. The Dems are very fortunate to have so many great candidates I think..Now if only Gore would run.

It's out!

You can't sweep a steaming pile of dog droppings under the carpet, and expect other people not to smell it.

[aquart]

7. No, the only color is green.

He really is too new at this to understand what you can and can't say, do and not do. As far as I'm concerned, he's in this race for the training.

[Ethelk2044]

13. He is not new. Let me get you the Facts they both have the same Experience

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010704/site/newsweek/

Both Clinton and Obama have called on foreign-policy heavyweights to educate them on the issues and help shape their approach to world affairs. But neither candidate would bring much in the way of hands-on foreign-policy experience to the Oval Office. Their efforts to promote their credentials can seem strained. Clinton's aides point to her extensive travel to more than 80 countries as First Lady and her 1995 speech at a U.N. conference on women in Beijing. "She helped represent the United States abroad throughout the '90s," says Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director. "Obviously, that's an important qualification. She went to China and gave a very famous and important address when she declared that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. That electrified the world." But these sanitized, ceremonial trips abroad are hardly preparation for the middle-of-the-night call from the Situation Room. After all, Laura Bush has also traveled extensively as First Lady, taking in 68 countries either with her husband or on her own. No one is saying she has the experience to be commander in chief.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Yup, neither of them have extensive security related experience

Neither do most people that run for President, though.

[MessiahRp]

6. I want us to get OBL but invading another country is not going to help us

As it stands the entire region is pretty angry towards us and we'd be pouring a large amount of gasoline onto the fire if we just charged into Pakistan.

I do not support Hillary or Obama at this point and I want to make that clear.

I think HE was right about talking with all foreign leaders directly but I disagree about just bursting into Pakistan. We need to pressure them and mostly the UN Security Council to get multilateral action on al-Qaeda there.

As a caveat we need to pull out of Iraq first to show we're not pressuring for action on Pakistan as some sort of middle eastern empirical occupation attempt.

We cannot let OBL get away but to this point we've been funneling $1 billion a year to Musharraf and not asking for accountability. Bushco doesn't seem to want to catch this guy because if he does their war on terror flushes down the toilet. Thus why they have had him on several occasions and let him go. They knew he was heading to Pakistan and was going to get immunity from the Musharraf regime if he didn't cause them problems and did nothing about it when they learned about it over a year ago.

At this point we need the world with us because our credibility is shot now and our intentions over there are (rightfully) questioned at every turn.

Obama's aggression vis a vis Iran and Pakistan certainly seem to counter his Iraq intuition when it comes to avoiding wars that could be messy quagmires with no real resolution.

Rp

[Ethelk2044]

14. Obama did not say invade another country. Read his statement Again

[MessiahRp]

27. Invading, no... Attacking, yes.

And either way without the consent of the Pakistani Government or a large coalition of UN nations behind us we will only cause more hatred and unrest in the Middle East and we continue to seal our doom for generations by creating countries that want revenge on us and new terrorists that will plan for years to attack us.

But hey, playing peek-a-boo with OBL and our jets/missiles in every country he might slip into is our right, isn't it? Isn't the prevailing American arrogance that we can attack anybody we want, when we want?

Without either consent of the Pakistanis or the UN being behind us we're only going to make our situation worse long term... worse than even OBL could have planned it for us.

Rp

[Hippo_Tron]

48. I don't think one missile that is meant for Bin Laden constitutes an attack

[MessiahRp]

52. Yeah because it would be only one missile.

Let's at least be honest about the debate at hand. We have to stop thinking we have jurisdiction to do whatever we want whenever we want. It's that exact thinking without any serious deliberation about the consequences of going and violating another country's sovereignty and the negative relationship that creates with that country's people that gets us into the messes that we are in currently.

Rp

[jackbourassa]

17. He never said anything about invading...

He talked about launching small operations and/or launching missiles at KNOWN terrorist sites in the northern Pakistan tribal regions.

We wouldn't "hold" the area, bring democracy or even stay. He never said anything about AN INVASION or regime change or anything like that. He said, basically, if the Pakistan government won't get rid of them (even though that was his first hope) then we should.

[MessiahRp]

26. Doing that without consent of the Pakistani Government would cause more unrest and more hatred of us

We need either them on board or a large coalition of countries on board with us so that it does not appear we're just attacking another Middle Eastern country.

As much as we want OBL we can't be attacking one country and then the next (and launching missiles may not be an "invasion" but it is attacking) just to keep trying to get OBL. By that logic every place he sneaks into is a target.

Rp

[jackbourassa]

28. Nonsense...

We've already launched strikes in Northern Pakistan. Clinton launched strikes as President, did he get the permission of those countries first?

[wyldwolf]

8. What's next? She hates us for our freedom??

[jackbourassa]

18. Don't evade the question!

If we knew the whereabouts of bin Laden and/or other dangerous terrorists in northern Pakistan, and the Pakistani government refused to help us get him --- should we get him ourselves?

[wyldwolf]

22. funny. That's what the average freeper says everytime I point out their "question" is bogus.

[jackbourassa]

23. Funny, you're still evading my question

Which I think is more than reasonable.

[wyldwolf]

24. your question is on par with "Why do you hate America?" Not worth considering

[jackbourassa]

25. Uh, no it isn't...

My question is actually very simple. If we were to discover the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden in northern Pakistan and the Pakistani government refused to "get him," should we "get him" ourselves?

How is that anything like "Why do you hate America?" It's a question about policy. Not to mention a plausible situation and the very thing you are attacking Obama for advocating.

You're just too afraid to answer the question honestly, so you evade it and throw around comparisons to neo-cons and other Republican idiots, etc. as a tactic of evasion. Because I suspect I already know your answer to my question is --- you would be infavor of attacking the position. Why? Because it would be the RIGHT and SMART thing to do.

It would be what any smart person would do. But you want to use the issue to attack Obama. So you attack what he said and KNOWINGLY distort his position. You refuse to answer the question because if you answer NO, you would have to take a position that is ridiculous and you don't agree with; if you answer YES you expose your own hypocricy.

[rinsd]

35. So when did you stop beating your wife?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

9. I heard that Gravel supporters have sex with animals.

Swear to god.

[ronnykmarshall]

10. I seen it!

It ain't purdy!

[saltpoint]

38. LOL!

Hi, ronnykmarshall. Good to see you on DU as always.

[IndianaJones]

11. Great...now its old neo-con talking points...

why can't someone admit a mistake was made and move on?

[jackbourassa]

19. It wasn't a mistake...I agree with him!

But answer the question I posed...

If we knew the whereabouts of bin Laden in northern Pakistan and the Pakistani government refused to help us "get him" should we "get him" ourselves?

Hint: it's a yes or no question.

[Ethelk2044]

12. I thought the samething yesterday. With all the hate because of what Obama said

It is not telling them to invade a country like we did with Iraq. He is saying to put pressure on their leaders to make sure we are able to capture them. However, I guess it does not mean anything about a lost of over 3000 lives and we have yet to capture the people responsible for it. Instead the pushed for a wrong war. A war we should not be in. Also, Hillary came out yesterday and said she would go after him as well on CNN.

[beastieboy]

16. She already met with Musharraf and discussed using a joint US-Pakistan force

She is acting like a diplomat, not running her mouth like Obama, pissing off Pakistan.

[jackbourassa]

21. You realize that the Pakistani army and Intelligence...

...have strong ties to the Taliban and bin Laden right?

So maybe everytime we get close, we'll let them tip him off. I'm sure that'll work.

Because Bush has had similar plans in place with Pakistan and it hasn't done a bit of good.

[zulchzulu]

20. Actually, Senator Clinton agreed with Senator Obama's statements

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3421230&mesg_id=3421230

So did Edwards...

[rinsd]

30. Why are you such a freaking liar? Hillary agreed with Obama.

[Cameron27]

31. These over the top posts don't help Obama,

or any candidate IMO.

[rinsd]

32. Someone needs a stone mason skilled in etching marble (nt)

[Cameron27]

33. Nevermind ROFL

I might be thinking of something else.

[oasis]

34. "Mr. Musarif, tear down this Waziristan"---Ramboma.

:spank:

[Tellurian]

42. Good one...Ramboma!

:rofl:

<squeaky voice>......oh, I thought you were under-cover-ops..secrectly setting up to support Obama!.. freaking lunatic!

[LWolf]

36. "Let bin Ladin go free," lol.

:rofl:

I don't know what HRC and her supporters think about OBL, and, frankly, I don't care. Unless she, like Obama, is interested in using him as an excuse to shift troops from Iraq to other nations, extending our military presence where it doesn't belong indefinitely.

I think that the time for "going after OBL" has long since come and gone. At this point, going after OBL is somehow reminiscent of OJ pursuing the "real killer" from his golf cart.

OBL has provided the excuse for war, for empire, and for bankrupting our nation, our domestic programs, and our national infrastructure long enough. If he surfaces, let's pick him up. If he doesn't, let's move on and put whatever energy and resources we haven't squandered to more productive uses.

[Tellurian]

43. I think Oy bama took the bid on that one..

He jumped when Bush asked if he'd leave the troops in the ME indefinately... It was the salute to the CIC that made me queasy!

[Ethelk2044]

39. Yes they do.

[Adelante]

40. This OP is as bad as the claims that Obama wants to invade Pakistan

Plain bullshit.

[Jersey Devil]

41. Yep, Obama was right about nuking Pakistan

Sorry, the Devil made me post that.:evilgrin:

[Psyop Samurai]

45. Psssst....

We've known for over 4 years that the "war on terror" was FRAUD on a Biblical scale.

Now Obama (who looks real nice) is trying to revive the original narrative.

Too late. Waaaaay too late.

Hillary correctly perceives that there have been no real consequences for the Satanic deception perpetrated on the American people and the world. So why not just stick with the status quo? Stay flexible?

:shrug:

[provis99]

46. so bin Laden really didn't attack on 9/11?

I'm opposed to the war in Iraq: was a crock of baloney from the beginning. But that doesn't mean we suddenly don't go after any terrorists. Geez, what Manichean outlooks on the world the Clintonistas have. If Pakistan is aiding bin Laden, then the situation is the same as with the Taliban in Afghanistan. And plenty of DU'ers were in favor of invading Afghanistan.

[autorank]

47. Reality check - the Bush White House was responsible for him getting free

according to the CIA agent on the scene and in charge. The man quit a 20 or so year career in disgust
after that one.

Since Obama want's to go after the people who let Osama run free, does that mean he wants to attack
the White House?

Of course not but this debate is ridiculous.

I agree with Mike Gravel who said, looking at both of them:

YOU FRIGHTEN ME!!!

Why was that? BECAUSE THEY'RE ADOPTING THE STUPID, FAILED, NIHILISTIC WAR MONGERING APPROACH
WE'VE BEEN SADDLED WITH FOR DECADES, PROPHETS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION AT THE WHIM OF THE LATEST
INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY LIMITED GUN SLINGER IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THE IRAQ WAR IS JUST THE
PERORATION IN A LONG SOLILOQUY OF DEATH.

Get real with this, stop justifying a descent into "tough guy/gal" rhetoric.

...and recognize that the "though guy/gal" rhetoric is not for the American public, which is
not hostile or aggressive. This rhetoric by BOTH Clinton and Obama is designed to curry favor
with the war economy which can, in their view, make or break their fund raising efforts,
deny or allow favorable news coverage from the flunkies at the corporate media. And guess who
gets to eat this shit sandwich of lies. The American public. I'm sick of people offering up
my country to go on half cocked killing sprees. I'm inclined to believe that Musharaff would
love to get rid of Bin Ladin (as Sadam wanted to get rid of threats to his regime) and that with the
right approach he'd do it. From that perspective, I see the suggestion that we invade Pakistan's space
"just cuz Stone Cold Obama says so" as one of the truly absurd statements in the campaign so far.

[Me.]

50. Are You Talking About John Oneil

who after quitting the government took a job at the Towers, where he died?

[autorank]

51. Not specifically but I'll take that association any day...a true PATRIOT

[Hippo_Tron]

49. No, Hillary agrees with Obama, but she and the media are just spinning his words

Hillary and everyone else running for President (except maybe Kucinich and Gravel) would take out Bin Laden if given the opportunity.