Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments - (top story....everywhere)

[Alamom]

Maybe some ole Baby-Boomer should educate Sen Obama on an old but very wise saying.

* "Loose lips sink ships"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080300321.html


Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments

By MUNIR AHMAD
The Associated Press
Friday, August 3, 2007; 4:57 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.

>

The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.


Just to list a few news outlets carrying the story. (everywhere you look)

http://news.yahoo.com/
Yahoo World News.
Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments

http://news.google.com/

Google News
Front Page @ 5:30 a.m. 8/03/07

Barack stumbles over nukes question
New York Daily News - 1 hour ago
&
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1118710758&hl=en

Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments
788 news articles


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/02/obama-draws-fire-from-08-dems/

CNN - Political Ticker

August 2, 2007
Obama draws fire from Democratic contenders


http://news.excite.com/index/id/politics%7Cap.html

AP - Aug. 3, 2007

Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments



Also, this today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/03/wafg103.xml



Pakistan urges UK to pull out of Afghanistan
By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad
Last Updated: 7:11am BST 03/08/2007


Britain and America have been urged to prepare an exit strategy from Afghanistan by sources within the Pakistan government as the number of fatalities among Nato forces fighting the Taliban grows.


The remarks, by a senior foreign ministry official, reflect the growing belief in Islamabad that Nato is as much to blame for the endurance of the Islamic rebel army as Pakistan, which has been accused by the United States of failing to destroy Taliban training camps on its border.

Nato has had to review tactics after a series of blunders in which large numbers of civilians were killed in raids intended to hit Taliban fighters.The Afghan government has claimed that the attacks acted as a recruiting sergeant for the rebels seeking to restore a hardline Islamic regime.

Khurshid Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said yesterday that Nato should consider holding talks with Taliban leaders.

>

Mr Kasuri added that the upper house of the Afghan parliament had shown the way "by speaking about the need to talk to some of the people who have taken up arms".Mr Kasuri said that Britain in particular should know the limitations of a purely military approach in Afghanistan."Britain has a good experience of the country, after all they fought three Afghan wars," he said. "Surely they have learnt from that."

>

Earlier this week Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, threatened to launch US military strikes against al-Qa'eda on Pakistani soil if he were elected president.Mr Kasuri accused Mr Obama of "trying to advance a political career by indulging in inflammatory rhetoric".

>

"We are still trying to isolate extremists by talking," he said. A peace jirga or council of Afghan and Pakistani tribal leaders and politicians is due to be held next week in Kabul in an attempt to resolve differences between the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and Pakistan.





*" Loose lips sink ships"

Meaning;

Unguarded talk may give useful information to the enemy.



I made the statement right after the speech and seeing "some" responses, "This ain't going away....."
It's much worse than I thought.
(Flame, scream, cuss, fuss & jump up and down...whatever makes you feel better.)
This is an incredible "mess" and it's growing like a weed all over the world regardless of what Sen. Obama's supporters or others on DU believe. If only(just)"DU" had heard & seen it......I wish it were so.

I sincerely hope someone knows how to cram worms back in a can & fast.
A GIGANTIC one has been opened.


Naive, irreponsible and inexperienced may be understatements.

[polichick]

1. Wonder if Obama plans to clarify his statement. nt

[Alamom]

2. I don't know. I think many fail to see how this can be used against Obama &

the Democratic Party. I am concerned that he has set himself & the Dems up to be blamed for a multitude of incidents. The repukes will surely use this in any way they can.

If there is an increase in violence anywhere involving military, civilians or anyone in the entire region (Iraq, Afghan., Pakis.) Obama's words can be used as the instigating factor.

I know...tinfoil!!! tinfoil!!!!

Have we not learned anything during the last 6 years? The blame will shift as surely as the sun rises.

BTW...


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070802.htm


Al Qaeda: "Big Surprise" Coming Soon
According to ABCNews.com, a "new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined 'Wait for the Big Surprise' and featuring a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House, was posted on the Internet today." It also features images of al Qaeda leaders "as well as a photo of an SUV in a motorcade." There is "no additional information provided in the ad."
posted 8/02/07



edsp

[Morereason]

29. Well, it is being used by Hillary supporters. What about Hillary's same words?

"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.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/wor...

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Well, it will hurt her, too, unless she specified that she would

get Musharaff's cooperation/consent. Did she say anything like that? (The link won't load for me, probably just high traffic, so I couldn't read the article.)

[DemBones DemBones]

31. I saw that about the Al Qaeda "ad" last night. Wonder what

the reason for including a photo of Bush &Musharaff was? Anger at Musharaff for allowing the CIA to capture Khalid Sheik Muhammad in Pakistan?

This will definitely be used against Obama, no matter how he tries to tone it down.

[Alamom]

3. Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag condemning Obama's remarks

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

By Shakil Adil, AP

[polichick]

4. Well, some of us said those words were inflammatory...

I think Obama will be forced to clarify his meaning, like it or not.

[Totally Committed]

5. I actually wish he would. It could go a long way to calming this mess down.

And, it could make him look very statesman-like if he does it right.

With the U.S.'s record, I'd be pretty pissed off, too, if I were the Pakistanis.

TC

[polichick]

6. I agree, he could come out looking great...

Yesterday I posted that the episode reminded me of the "axis of evil" days, and I noticed you mentioned it too ~ makes sense that the Pakistanis would take it badly.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Brookings Institute's Michael O'Hanlon says Obama clearly gave the right answer on this.

U.S. officials rarely rule out nuclear attacks as a matter of diplomacy, preferring to keep the threat as a deterrent. Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world.

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar, said Obama "clearly gave the right answer."

"He's certainly right to say you would never use a nuclear weapon to get Osama bin Laden," he said. He said that if intelligence officials were able to locate bin Laden with the precision required for a nuclear attack, they would also be able to catch or kill him by more conventional means that would not signal to the world that using nuclear force is acceptable.

The Obama campaign was still responding to the uproar late in the afternoon. "If we had actionable intelligence about the existence of high-level al-Qaeda targets like Osama bin Laden, Senator Obama would act and is confident that conventional means would be sufficient to take the target down," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman. "Frankly we're surprised that others would disagree."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html

[polichick]

8. He seems to be commenting on the nuclear part...

...rather than the statement about going into Pakistan.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Yes, that's right.

[polichick]

10. That's not the part Obama needs to clarify. nt

[flpoljunkie]

11. I don't see the going into Pakistan as needing clarification. If Musharraf doesn't act on

actionable intelligence, he would. Neither Hillary or Edwards disagree with him on that.

[polichick]

12. And yet neither one of them has...

...unnecessarily and undiplomatically pointed fingers, a la Bush's axis of evil.

Obama is a decent guy ~ he can make it right.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Perhaps someone needs to light a fire under Musharraf. Obama would act only if Musharraf would not.

[polichick]

14. We don't need to perpetuate the idea of the US as bully...

...unless we want to perpetuate the idea that bin Laden is right about us.

Obama should consult with anthropologists who understand the region instead of people like Colin Powell.

(I don't believe Bush ever wanted to catch bin Laden because of family loyalties ~ in that case, Pakistan has been cooperating.)

[flpoljunkie]

15. Musharraf could have done more than he has, has pretty much twisted Bush around his little finger.

And, the compliant media has let both Bush and Musharrraf pretty much skate their responsiblities.

[polichick]

16. How do you know Bush isn't getting exactly what he wants?

Like I said, it's possible he never intended to catch bin Laden ~ bad for the family ties, ya know.

[flpoljunkie]

17. You do have a point about Bush possibly not intending to catch bin Laden--certainly not before he

invaded Iraq.

[polichick]

18. Yeah, it ain't pretty...

But the "search for bin Laden" could be Bush's biggest lie of all!

[PurityOfEssence]

19. has either one talked about "the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan"?

I seem to have missed that quip.

Vagueness and modern military force are a heady mixture.

[TankLV]

53. Obama - Not Ready For Prime Time - this is but one example...

[DemBones DemBones]

37. China must make a lot of money selling flags to protesters abroad.

They always seem to have a good suppy of American flags to burn.

[nolabels]

56. At least in the US we are more sophisticated

In the US, ordinary citizens do not even have resort to such worn retorts to other countries, our government does it pro-actively before we even have to think about it :sarcasm::shrug::sarcasm:

Los Angeles Independent Media Center
________________________________________
Original article is at http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725.php
basic stats for US imperialism
by cecil • Sunday November 24, 2002 Sunt 04:18 PM

a reference guide for activists.
Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism

Contents:
1—list of interventions for “regime change”
2—list of air warfare campaigns
3—list of client states
4—list of states held by debt-leverage imperialism
5—list of foreign base hosts
6—list of murder toll
7—list of unsavory rightists supported
8—list of perverted international bodies
9—list of interventions for opposing liberation
10—list of interventions pre-1941
11—list of covert operations
12—list of front organizations
13—list of low intensity conflicts
14—list of proxy wars
15—list of foreign policy doctrines
16—list of propaganda campaigns
Bibliography
Useful Periodicals
Relevant Hyperlinks

[jillan]

44. Great - just great

:banghead:

[jillan]

45. Alamom -

Can you post a link?

[Alamom]

51. Certainly.

Original post;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3424034&mesg_id=3424034


Link with story & photo
USA Today - 8/03/07


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-03-pakistan-obama_N.htm

[Forkboy]

20. I'm not surprised in the slightest.

I've been saying the wording was big mistake all friggin' week.He said it to appeal to the home crowd without thinking of the larger ramifications internationally.

[Morereason]

21. Anyone else tired of the candidate propaganda being hoisted in the forums

This is supposed to be the "age of reason" for democrats. I could care less about ... "Lookie, the other democrat has stumbled and bit their lip!". This is soooooo obviously an attempt to influence and not meant to be for discussion.
Just as the article about the "protest" in Pakistan was likely a small group of 20 people, but the media beefs it up. What is happening with Obama is the media is again choosing our candidates. A slip of the tongue amplified, then carry it for several days. Define the candidate on a set of human slips. And amazingly people on DU participate.

[Mass]

22. Does that mean that Hillary will let Pakistan decide of our national security policy?

Or just that Hillary's supporters do not know what to invent because Obama is offering a different foreign policy different from the DC CW (even if the media do not like that and distort what he says)

[jenmito]

23. Why wasn't there any outrage when Bush and Hillary said the same things?

Why didn't the MSM make a big deal out of it when Hillary said the same thing?

[Morereason]

24. This is just the media machine whipping into action.

[jenmito]

25. Yup. And they're all playing off the same sheet of music...

Hillary's the "experienced" one and Obama is making "rookie mistakes" even though they have the same position:

"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.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates

[Morereason]

28. Just goes to show that even progressives have work to do to learn how to recognize media influence

and competitor propaganda

[jenmito]

30. I agree. The media wrote the script in '04 and they're doing it again...

We have to resist the propaganda.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. When did she say it? Until this thread, I didn't know she had

and the link upthread didn't load for me. I am NOT a Clinton supporter BTW.

[Colobo]

26. I think Pervez should focus more in helping us find Bin Laden...

[DemBones DemBones]

27. I couldn't believe he made such a huge blunder. Pakistan is an ally,

and they have nukes. They may not be the ideal ally but diplomatic means are needed to encourage Pakistan to help us find Bin Laden, if he's still living.

[jenmito]

32. Do you feel the same about Hillary who said the same thing? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. HRC is not the one being criticized by a foreign government

Obama opened this can of worms.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. Did she make her comment after Obama's? Was it a response to

being asked about his comment? I haven't seen the news on this today.

[jenmito]

39. She made the same comment back in JAN.

I posted it up a few posts ago.

[jenmito]

38. If the MSM would've reported it like they reported it when HE said it she would've been criticized.

or don't you agree?

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Yes, if she said it without qualifying it. I just read about

her statement two minutes ago, as I posted at the beginning of the thread where someone posted her comment. I couldn't load the page they linked to so I don't know if she qualified it by saying she would seek Musharaff's cooperation/consent.

I am NOT a Clinton supporter at all, BTW.

[jenmito]

40. Good. Because she didn't qualify it, either.

That's not the point.

[DemBones DemBones]

42. Then they were both wrong. Kucinich would never say such a thing

because he supports peace.

[jenmito]

43. I think we need to be strong against those who attacked us...

I see nothing wrong with Obama's position. But I respect how you feel about it.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. So do I but Pakistan didn't attack us. We should be handling this

the way Bill Clinton did. I disagreed with a lot of things he did, but he was right to treat terrorists as criminals and finding them as a law enforcement problem. Under his administration, arrests were made in connection with the first WTC bombing and the Oklanhoma City bombing, and planned terrorist attacks were stopped.

What Obama and Hillary have done is threaten a pre-emptive strike on an ally.

Diplomacy is needed. We need to ask our allies to help us. Musharaff must have already cooperated to some degree since Khalid Sheik Mohammad was caught in Pakistan. He has also tried to deal with the problem of the madrassas that teach hate to young Muslim boys.

[Dawgs]

52. Uh, where did Obama say he would approve a "pre-emptive strike on an ally."

Talk about twisting someone's words.

[jenmito]

54. Did you read or watch his speech?

He SAID diplomacy is needed. He would only strike those who already struck US! It's not preemptive.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. BTW, Kucinich would use military force if necessary, but would try

to resolve differences diplomatically.

[jenmito]

55. Just like Obama. n/t

[fujiyama]

50. Ally my ass

Mushy is an "ally" of whomever is giving him billions in military aid - in this case, Bush. His country isn't "allied" with the US in any way.

Meanwhile he hasn't done a goddamn thing.

[jillan]

47. This picture says it all

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

By Shakil Adil, AP

--------------

This is not a game. This is not just politics.
We do not need anymore enemies in that part of the world.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. of the top-tier I've leaned slightly toward Obama -- but these comments were totally irresponsible

It is not a question of whether or not any given President may or may not take a certain unorthodox action under certain specific conditions, but to say such things in open speech is dangerous, irresponsible, contrary to America's interest and destabilizing to the region.

And I say this as an American who has spent more than 20 years in the Islamic world.

It is not just Sen. Obama by any means. And none of this will turn me into a supporter of Sen. Clinton prior to the nominating convention.

But national leaders whether in Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the Islamic world walk a very, very tight rope. Irresponsible comments for domestic American electorate consumption get widely reported in the region. And these kind of comments do NOT help! Quite the contrary, just like Presidents Bush's "Axis of Evil" reference to Iran strengthened the reactionary elements in Iran while weakening the more liberal elements -- and almost certainly helped elect Iran's current president - irresponsible comments from presidential candidates or any leading American politician is a strike against liberal and progressive forces in the regions and a boost for hostile elements.

Just think if it was in reverse. What if, for example, a leading Egyptian politician who was possibly a future president said that he would consider military strikes inside the United States? Would that help progressive American elements or would it strengthen right-wing reactionary forces?