Why is only OBAMA called "naive" when Hillary and Bush both said THEY'D strike inside Pakistan, too

[jenmito]

HEY-LOOK! Bush would strike inside Pakistan to get top al Qaeda targets just like Obama would!:

BLITZER: The president told me when I interviewed him last September that absolutely is the way he phrased it, if the U.S. had intelligence on where Osama bin Laden was inside of Pakistan, he would order an immediate strike to capture or kill him. You basically said the same thing today.

But there was a story in "The New York Times" on July 8th, among other things it said this. "A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas were aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan."

Is that true, had you all of the actionable intelligence you needed but you were afraid to jeopardize relations with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf and as a result, you called off the operation?

TOWNSEND: Wolf, obviously, I'm not going to talk about classified military operational matters. Here is what I will tell you. The president has been very clear, job number one and nothing will interfere with us being successful at it is protecting the American people from another attack.

Number two, that there are no options off the table. If we knew where Osama bin Laden is, of course if he was in Pakistan, we would try to work with our Pakistani allies. Let's be very clear, there would be no action, intelligence, military or otherwise that would be taken off the table to protect the people.

BLITZER: So the U.S. would launch an air strike to kill him if necessary despite opposition from the government of Pakistan?

TOWNSEND: Make no mistake about it, if we have the opportunities to capture, kill bin Laden, we're going to take it.

BLITZER: I'll take that as a yes. Fran Townsend, thanks very much for joining us.

TOWNSEND: Thank you.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/17/sitroom.02.html


And so would Hillary!:

"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

[zulchzulu]

1. The word will get out soon enough that Obama's assessment was correct

I hope anyway...

[jenmito]

5. I hope so, too...

but today on all the shows they're all saying Obama make a rookie mistake. :eyes:

[Robbien]

2. GOP and MSM are pushing for Clinton to be the candidate

We need to get used to being bombarded with MSM inconsistencies such a this Pakistan stance.

[jenmito]

6. I agree. NONE of the MSM are pointing out that Hillary made the same "rookie mistake."

Not to mention that BUSH said the SAME THING!

[Robbien]

10. There is a really good diary over at dKos

outlining the case of the GOP/MSM desire to have Clinton be the primary winner

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/3/95325/65672

It is the very absurdity of the lie that often paralyzes its targets. It is often such a contemptuous and blatant untruth that its targets initially believe that it is beneath their dignity to even respond.

And so it goes unchallenged.

In 2000 their man was a braggart and a bully while their opponent was a man who was almost universally recognized to be one of the most fundamentally honest and decent men in government. And so they impugned his character and ran of a platform of returning integrity to the office.

In 2004 their man was the same braggart, and a man who had dodged the draft. Their opponent was a bona fide war hero.

They impugned his masculinity and his courage.

This year, they don’t have their candidate yet (though they have decided who ours should be -- a point I will touch on later). But recent events suggest that they have decided on their strategy. Having created an environment of corruption and greed unmatched since the Harding administration, and having paralyzed government with obstructionism, and having utterly destroyed our nation’s standing in the world and having stretched our military to the breaking point, what could they possibly run on?

Clean, effective government and responsible foreign policy.

Think they won’t try it?

Think again.

All they need to do this is to get the right opponent under the right circumstances. That opponent will be Hillary Clinton

much more . . .

[jenmito]

15. Thanks for the article...

And I noticed today when Condoleezza Rice was asked if BUSH would strike within Pakistan if Musharraf didn't cooperate, she refused to answer, saying he IS cooperating and he's our ally (or as she pronounces it, "al-LIE."

[Colobo]

3. They want to bring him down.

[jenmito]

7. I see that..

it's a clear narrative orchestrated by the MSM.

[Morereason]

28. Exactly... It's the MEDIA choosing our candidates for us.. just the usual

[Ethelk2044]

4. Obama 's was correct. He just needs to continue to push it.

[jenmito]

8. I think he will continue to push it...and he should.

I don't even WANT him to point out that Hillary and Bush have the same position because THEN they'll jump on him for not being the "candidate of change."

[madrchsod]

9. hillary is the media darling

they love her because she treats all others as dirt beneath her feet..yes the strong woman they all love to hate

[jenmito]

12. It sure seems that way!

WHY, though?

[madrchsod]

14. don`t know

they either want her because they know she`s electable and won`t rock the boat or they are scared she will win and move to the left of center...i`m not sure but maybe it`s just a good story in an otherwise boring race..what can they say about the republicans? these guys are all losers where the dems have winners

[jenmito]

16. I think they just want the story of Hillary vs. a Repub. so that

they can do story after story about the possibility of Bill being "first man."

[madrchsod]

17. ---->

[jenmito]

20. ---------->

:rofl: :D

[BestCenter]

11. I'm not so sure if Hillary's statement is equivalent

She didn't say anything about unilateralism, or doing it without the permission of the government of Pakistan, did she?

[jenmito]

13. It is...

I don't have the link to her interview, but I believe she said she'd act immediately on actionable intelligence if necessary.

[Totally Committed]

18. That's a really good question!

I can think of a few not-so-great alternatives, given the two he's being compared to, though, so I can see him wanting to stick with "naive" once he heard those. ;)

Seriously -- good question. Nice reframe!

TC

[jenmito]

23. Thanks...

and I know he doesn't really want to have anything in common with those two, but that's not really the point. Why doesn't anyone in the MSM point this out? He is definitely being made out to seem like the new kid who keeps messing up when not only was he smarter than both of them re: Iraq, he is NOT "more naive" than either of them.

[Totally Committed]

43. I dunno, Jen... it's the MSM. Who knows why the do or don't do anything?

But, seeing that you have a special relaationship with Mr. Cafferty, perhaps you could write him, and very gently ask him to mention it??? I bet he would if you asked him. :)

TC

[jenmito]

44. Who knows why-but they ARE doing it...

and I don't think I have that much power with Jackie-boy. I'm going to wait 'til some related question comes up about it. :)

[Totally Committed]

47. Sounds like a plan!

You are a genius with those questions! You have a gift.

TC

[jenmito]

48. Thanks...

but you're giving me way too much credit. :hi:

[Contrary1]

19. Just based on my own opinion and nothing else...

I think the Repubs want Hillary to run. They are saving up their venom for her.

[jenmito]

24. I believe you're right...

I think the majority of the MSM wants Hillary to run and lose to Giuliani. They want a subway series and they want to wonder out loud what Bill would be like as the "first man."

[illinoisprogressive]

21. media is playing with hillary and going along with the swiftboating

[karynnj]

22. Not all negative campaigning is swiftboating - this certainly isn't

Obama is being quoted accurately - it is fair for anyone to chararacterize a response any way they want - you can say that the medai is parroting Clinton's spin (if you think that is true), but in no way is this swiftboating.

This - to me is very normal politics, not even close to dirty politics. The Clinton camp is trying to put a label on Obama. They are not making up a quote - and people can make there own judgements.

[jenmito]

26. But Hillary said the same thing and the media never mentions it...

except once, which is how I know about it. They showed the interview where she said the same thing he said.

[karynnj]

27. That is true and it means three things - all in Obama's favor

1) She is proving herself a hypocrite
2) She is flip flopping by now saying she wasn't where she is
3) As both said it and both have advisors, it is likely the "right" political position.

Think of the ammo she's given him - imagine a u-tube or ad that says something like "On some issues the Democratic candidates have the same position" then plays the shortest segment of Obama's and Hillary's statements. Then says "Sometimes, this may be hidden by political games - as in this case when Hillary said of the position they both held" then plays Hillary's statement.

My point is that twisting things said in public is politics, but it is not either a dirty trick or even less swiftboating - not even close.

[jenmito]

31. I agree...here's another idea...

for an ad: Show Bush saying he'd absolutely strike inside Iraq, show Hillary saying the same thing, then show OBAMA saying what HE said. THEN show both Hillary and then someone from the admin. calling Obama reckless for saying what he (as well as they) said, and then ask, "Who do you believe-Bush and Clinton BEFORE Obama made his position clear or Bush and Clinton AFTER Obama made his position clear? Obama-consistent, clear, and keepin' it real." :D

[jenmito]

25. I think they want her to win the primary and lose the general. n/t

[Morereason]

29. Hillary is the establishment candidate. Even if she wins she will not rock the existing foundation

We will get a few nice little programs but the status quo will not be threatened. The state will remain in the hands of the corporations. It will be a "kinder-Gentler" fascism.. at least long enough to calm the populous.

[jenmito]

32. I agree. n/t

[sampsonblk]

30. 'Naive' was in ref to his diplomatic promises

But Clinton has made him look like a novice.

So now everything he says apparently is going to be judged in that light. He's going to have to show something to change that perception that he's a foreign policy rookie.

[jenmito]

33. Yes, but this morning they were all saying he looked naive AND made mistakes...

Clinton is TRYING to make him look like a novice and the media is going along with her. He DID show something to change that perception (which many libs. don't think was a mistake) by giving his Pakistan speech which involved a lot MORE than just striking inside Pakistan...

[sampsonblk]

34. Oh I agree with you

His diplomacy point was a good point, in my view. His Pakistan point was weak. But he's going to have advisors, so big deal.

But that perception thing. That's really being drummed up against him at this point.

And the more time he spends on this is more time away from his 'audacity of hope' message. Not a good sign.

[jenmito]

35. I think his Pakistan point was STRONG...

not to mention identical to Hillary and Bush's position. So I don't understand why his Pakistan comment was taken as "showing a lack of experience."

[sampsonblk]

36. Huh?

What he was talking about doing (Pakistan) was illegal, unethical and plain foolish. In my opinion, he'd have advisors to talk him out of it. Or else he'd at least be smart enough to not announce he'd do it.

I think its also a violation of the UN charter and just about every related treaty. If it ever comes to that, there are ways around it. But you just can't announce that you are going to do that.

[jenmito]

37. Did you read my OP? Hillary and Bush said the same thing.

Bin Laden declared war on us. We don't have a right to get him if Musharraf won't cooperate?

[sampsonblk]

38. Not the same thing

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama warned Pakistan Wednesday that he would use military force if necessary to root out terrorists, the second time in two weeks that he's staked out a dramatically different road for U.S. foreign policy...

...Obama said he would take a harder line. He said Musharraf must do more to shut down terrorist operations along the Afghan border or risk a U.S. military attack against the foreign fighters and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said. “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-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2007/08/05/news/beyond_boulder/news5.txt
---/-/---

That is not the same thing as what Bush and Clinton have said. The difference is huge, which is why there have been anti-Obama protests in Pakistan this week.

[jenmito]

39. How is what Bush said any different?:

BLITZER: "The president told me when I interviewed him last September that absolutely is the way he phrased it, if the U.S. had intelligence on where Osama bin Laden was inside of Pakistan, he would order an immediate strike to capture or kill him. You basically said the same thing today."

from my OP

[sampsonblk]

53. Because Bush never said 'over the objections of Musharraf'

Since Bush doesn't address the objections of Musharraf, its assumed that he is not ruling out getting permission. Bush may already have that permission for all we know.

Obama is saying screw Musharraf. If we find bin Laden, we are going in no matter what anyone says. Bush clarified his point today even further:

'President Bush said Monday the U.S. and Pakistan, if armed with good intelligence, can track and kill al-Qaida leaders. He stopped short of saying whether he would ask the Pakistani president before dispatching U.S. troops into that nation.'

-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070806/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_karzai_38

Bush is being vague, as he should be. He never publicly said he will violate Pakistani territory illegally.

[jenmito]

54. Bush has changed his position!

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.

The president made the comments Wednesday in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. (Watch Bush state his position on Iran and the war on terror -- 18:06)

Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/20/bush.intv/index.html

[sampsonblk]

55. We will take the necessary steps...

Step 1: Pay Musharraf
Step 2: Get him to claim he was against the operation, even though he's providing intelligence...

[jenmito]

56. Fran Townsend said Bush would strike if Musharraf wouldn't cooperate...

She said protecting the U.S. is Bush's top priority. Wolf repeated the question and she said yes. I'll have to find it, because they flip-flopped since then.

[JVS]

40. Maybe the other two are just considered evil

:shrug:

[Imagevision]

41. Listen-up --> key words; ""If we had actionable intelligence" time for some Youngblood in politic's

[jenmito]

42. I agree. n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

45. Easy, Obama is a softer target than HRC or Ed.

It's rather ridiculously easy to paint Barack as lacking experience, especially compared to HRC and Ed.

[jenmito]

46. But that's not responsible reporting...

and I'm not sure how much more experience Edwards has over Obama, not to mention Hillary. Even with "all" their experience they, unlike Obama, were wrong on the IWR.

[AtomicKitten]

49. Obama is a threat (to the other candidates) and must be stopped!

It's sad that our candidates not only have to face the traditional pounding by the Media Heathers, but there are a few DU'ers that have made it their life's work to attack Obama here at DU day after day, thread after thread.

It's brutal out there in the trenches.

[jenmito]

50. It's true and it IS sad...

I see why the MSM is doing it-they have an agenda. But why do posters here repeat the talking points?

[AtomicKitten]

51. Rovian tactics and propaganda.

I guess we did learn something from the Republicans after all.

:-(

[jenmito]

52. Yup...

I wish they'd be different than the Repubs.!