Nice Job Obama, Musharraf pulls out of peace council...

[beastieboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan_pakistan

Musharraf pulls out of peace council

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

KABUL, Afghanistan - Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf pulled out Wednesday from a council of hundreds of Pakistani and Afghan tribal leaders aimed at reining in militant violence.
ADVERTISEMENT

Pakistan's Foreign Office said Musharraf was canceling his trip to Kabul because of "engagements" in Islamabad. Pakistani political analyst Talat Masood said, however, that Musharraf probably was responding to recent U.S. criticism of Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts, which has included suggestions that the U.S. could carry out unilateral military strikes against al-Qaida in Pakistan.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Pakistan's pissed because Congress made our aid dependent on

their stepping up counterterrorism efforts. No more blank checks for them. Obama didn't say anything that the Bush admin hasn't been saying.

[atreides1]

11. And Yet

Congress doesn't put the same stipulation on aid given to Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from and where Bin Laden created AQ!

[TwilightGardener]

14. Nope--we love them. They get a pass. They have black gold, and plenty of it.

[SteelPenguin]

2. Well I gotta say

If Musharraf did this because an American political candidate, who was chided for his comments, and is trailing in the polls by double digits, maybe Obama was right and they're too weak to do anything.

Just sayin'.

[wyldwolf]

3. It's that wonderful foreign policy judgement!

[TwilightGardener]

4. LOL! If you think Obama has this much international influence as a CANDIDATE,

then he must loom pretty large. I'm impressed.

[Mojorabbit]

29. Bush was ragging on him yesterday too

if you hunt around you can find the post.
on edit
Bush won't rule out terror hit
If intelligence is good, he might not alert Pakistan

August 7, 2007

ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAMP DAVID, Md. -- President George W. Bush said Monday that with the right intelligence, the U.S. and Pakistani governments could take out Al Qaeda leaders. But Bush wouldn't say whether he first would consult with Pakistan before ordering U.S. forces to act on their own.

"With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done," Bush said.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/NEWS07/708070376/1001/NEWS
just a quick search found one of many articles

[wyldwolf]

31. so you're saying Obama is Bush-Cheny lite?

[Mojorabbit]

35. No but the posts that this is Obama's fault

are not correct. I have my problems with more warmongering from some candidates but I wouldn't let this get put on Obama alone.

[Dawgs]

37. It sounds like they are saying that, along with Hillary and Edwards, Bush also agrees with Obama.

[sandnsea]

5. Musharraf is not our ally

This proves it. Obama is going to be shown to be right on this too.

[MADem]

10. He's gotten rich as Roosevelt off us, though--we've handed him BILLIONS NT

[TwilightGardener]

16. I'm really not sure what we get out of helping Pakistan--we are being extorted

because of their nukes. This is why I don't think Iran should be allowed to have nukes either. Enough of this shit.

[TwilightZone]

6. Nice excuse. I wonder if this was orchestrated by the White House.

Hmm?

[Ethelk2044]

7. Your Post is Bull Shit.

[beastieboy]

13. Please explain? Words have consequences.

[MADem]

8. I will preface this by saying I am still UNDECIDED...but if Obama could 'persuade' Pervez to run

away from a peace council, then Pakistan needs new leadership NOW, not later.

[xchrom]

9. stupid flamebait.

[beastieboy]

15. This is a legitimate criticism, not "Botox"

[xchrom]

27. legitimate

:rofl:

[MADem]

18. Well, the 'nice job' comment IS out of line, but the context is supported in the story

Pakistani political analyst Talat Masood said, however, that Musharraf probably was responding to recent U.S. criticism of Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts, which has included suggestions that the U.S. could carry out unilateral military strikes against al-Qaida in Pakistan.

"He is trying to convey a strong message to the United States. There have been a lot of statements coming out of Washington about violating Pakistan's sovereignty and so on," Masood said.

Mister Masood, unfortunately, doesn't understand the difference between commentary by a political candidate who works in DC from commentary by officials tasked to do diplomacy--so unless the comments are coming out of the White House or State Dept, he should take a chill pill.

He might be afraid of an attempt on his life at the jirga (regional security is VERY iffy on a good day no matter how much you prepare) and he's using the Obama remarks as a limp excuse.

[beastieboy]

19. Why is it out of line? Can't tie in the consequence with the instigation?

[MADem]

22. Because if you read the article, Obama's name is never mentioned.

And it could well be that Mister Masood's reference was primarily with regard to the info contained in the NIE that was released a couple of weeks back--in fact, if I had to guess, I would say THIS is the reference, and Obama is merely the icing on the cake, not the "prime actor" at all:

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/17/cq_3103.html

The document recounted mixed progress in combating terrorism. It said that U.S. and allied counterterrorism efforts have “constrained” al Qaeda’s capabilities and disrupted plots in the last five years. But it expressed concern that the level of effort could wane. It said al Qaeda retains safe havens in Pakistan and key leaders, and would seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[xchrom]

44. well, like pakistan was an honest particpant in this process

to begin with.

it seems to me that the u.s. has MORE reason to treat pakistan in fairly hostile manner -- than the other way around.

BUT -- pakistan is not and has not been a real friend to the u.s. when it comes to the issue of who is hiding out in waziristan and other terrorists inside pakistan.

but perhaps he can take comfort in his new BFF -- bhutto.

[MADem]

61. They took the money and ran. Wouldn't you? I mean, really....

Some idiot who didn't even know WHO you WERE when he was running for President (Say George, who runs Pakistan??? Er, uh, duh....the UHHHHHH...doh, I don't 'member his name, he's a GENERAL...) decides to throw billions at you for dumping the uniform you wore when you forcefully shoved the elected leader into house arrest, putting on a nice British suit, and talking like the guy who runs the convenience store on The Simpsons to the stupid American population....and you get BILLIONS....yep, that's with a B, for doing it...AND you can lock up your enemies, because it's all about 'terra'....and you'll STILL get BILLIONS!!!

Pervez found the gig enticing, and who can blame him. It's nice work, no sweat...!!!

[0007]

12. JASON STRAZIUSO is another clown from the "Propaganda Ministy"....he could

take a course from John Pilger or Greg Palast if he were bright enough.

[back2basics909]

17. Fantastics!..

.. he pulled out of peace talks with the people who are protecting Osama, the Waziristan tribal leaders.

Obama did that as a candidate. He did what Bush hasn't been able to do in 6 years with one comment.

Thats extreamly good news.

[beastieboy]

20. Um, no, they were supposed to be working together to deal with the problem

Nice spin, though.

[Dawgs]

40. Wrong. It shows that Obama was right about the leadership in Pakistan.

They really don't care about fighting terrorism.

[sniffa]

49. nice spin?

:rofl: dude, you're kiLLing me here. :rofl:

nice job obama, the red sox Lost Last night.

[Wink]

57. Naive if you believe that nonsense

Pakistan hasn't, won't, and will never go after Osama. The backlash would be too much for their gov't to handle. Obama is correct. If we have intel that locates Osama then we should insert special forces to take him out. Then Pakistan can feign indignation (even if they secretly approve) about our incursion to satisfy their populace.

[ripple]

21. You miss the point.

Musharraf's decision to avoid the peace council only illustrates his unwillingness to confront the Taliban and al-qaeda in his country. I suppose that's Obama's fault, too. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

23. You blame Obama for this?

How silly

[Nutmegger]

24. Dictator Musharraf isn't our ally anyways.

New Musharraf deal with militants

PAKISTAN'S embattled President yesterday thumbed his nose at Washington and the NATO-led coalition fighting in Afghanistan, concluding a third "peace deal" with Taliban-supporting militants in a key border region.

ervez Musharraf's latest accord with the militants covers the tribal area of Bajaur where al-Qa'ida No2 Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to have escaped a coalition airstrike last year. It is in the heartland of the zone where US special forces have been hunting a resurgent al-Qa'ida.

Washington opposed the "peace deals" concluded by General Musharraf last year in North and South Waziristan. It claims they have led to a growth in the insurgency in the area, with Pakistani forces retreating and leaving the militants largely unchallenged.

But the latest deal covering the Bajaur Agency - one of seven tribal areas nominally administered by Islamabad - suggests General Musharraf is determined to persist with the policy.

Pakistan signs peace deal with pro-Taliban militants

In a move that some say appears 'a total capitulation' to pro-Taliban forces, Pakistan signed a peace deal with tribal leaders in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan Tuesday, and is withdrawing military forces in exchange for promises that militant tribal groups there will not engage in terrorist activities.

The Associated Press reports that the agreement is meant to end five years of fighting in the province, located along the border with Afghanistan, that has claimed the lives of over 350 Pakistani troops and hundreds of militants and civilians.

Under the pact – signed by a militant leader, Azad Khan, and a government representative, Fakhr-e-Alam – no militant in North Waziristan will shelter foreign militants.

Militants also will not target Pakistani government and security officials or pro-government tribal elders or journalists, North Waziristan lawmaker Maulana Nek Zaman said.

(It's really not Obama's fault.)

[beastieboy]

26. Right, it would be far better if the militants took over.

[robinlynne]

25. for goodness sakes, dont blame obama for anything a military dictator does,

who has been receiving tons of our tax money and giving it to osama bin laden. Think before you post. REALLY!

[Nimrod2005]

28. Give me a fucking break, this is MORONIC big time.

[sniffa]

30. way to go obama

why not just go ahead and give nukes to aL queda?

[ripple]

36. That's precisely what Musharraf is on his way to doing

He backed out because he does not wish to confront al qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan. Meanwhile, they continue to grow stronger and they will soon reach the point that Musharraf's government won't be able to push them back single-handedly, even if there is a desire to do so.

[Dawgs]

42. Are you serious?

This shows Obama to be right. Pakistan is not interested in fighting the terrorists, and this proves it.

[rinsd]

32. There is no need to reduce yourself to the level of Team Smear-4-Obama (nt)

[beastieboy]

33. I think it is a reasonable criticism.

Obama has been trying to backtrack on the topic and his supporters refuse to see the reason that he is being criticized. But I guess I was lashing out.

[rinsd]

34. I don't think its reasonable to blame Obama for this.

[Dawgs]

43. Where has Obama tried to backtrack, since you are desperate to attack him on this?

[beastieboy]

48. Last night in the debate. He tried to make it sound like he wasn't advocating unilateral action.

Which is not what he initially said.

[incapsulated]

38. hahaha

That Bastard! :D

Obama is not to blame for any of this.

Anyone who thinks Musharraf is making decisions based on what a candidate for the nomination of a party in the US says, is an idiot.

People have been complaining about this issue long before Obama said anything.

[Dawgs]

39. This makes Obama look correct.

If Musharraf really cared about militant violence, why would he do something like this?

Looks like Obama called this one correctly.

[UrbScotty]

41. Don't forget to thank Edwards and Hillary for agreeing with Obama!

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

[beastieboy]

51. Nice try, the difference is unilateral vs. including Pakistand and Musharraf in the decisions

That is indisputably the difference which the Obama supporters refuse to realize.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

53. minor question

Here is the section from the speech he had the other day

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.


Obama states he will act if Musharraf won't act on proper intelligence about high value targets, which means he would ask Musharraf to deal with it, or help to deal with it

Now if Musharraf were to refuse to act on the intel then i am all for Obama or any other president to send in some special ops(if in a village et al) or a missile strike at an terrorist camp

If i understand you correctly tho you mean the US shouldn't act on intel unless they get permission from the leader in the said country(even if the leader refuses to act on the info given), does that mean you are giving all countries a veto power on US foreign policy?

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Yep, Obama IS god: all good things that happen are because of him, but none of the bad things are

Very few things happen as a response to only one thing, so it'd be a bit silly to claim that Musharraf's distancing himself was solely because of Obama's bellicose blather.

It sure as hell didn't HELP, though...

[zulchzulu]

46. Wow! Obama must be really powerful!

Musharraf needs to know we have his number.

[jenmito]

47. OR it's because Bush has the same position as Obama???

He backtracked now, but he told Wolf Blitzer he'd strike inside Pakistan if their was intel. and Pakistan wouldn't do it.

[AtomicKitten]

50. self-delete

[rjones2818]

52. Is anyone really surprised?

The war party gets what it wants, and a Dem delivers it for them. Sheesh.

:grr:

[killbotfactory]

54. First Obama gets ragged on for being willing to talk to dictators

Now he's getting ragged on for not being willing to coddle a dictator.

It's a strange world.

[MUSTANG_2004]

58. Agreed. His comments seemed reasonable to me

He said that, in the hypothetical situation, if al qaida were planning an attack on the US from Pakistan, and Pakistan wasn't acting to take out the terrorists, that he would send in US forces to prevent the attack.

That seems like a clear-cut situation where the correct response is to prevent the attack on the US, even if it costs us an ally. Espiecially in this hypothetical case where the ally isn't taking the proper steps to stop the attack.

[beastieboy]

55. Further proof Obama inflamed Pakistan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070808/pakistan-emergency/

SLAMABAD, Pakistan — The government of embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday it may impose a state of emergency because of "external and internal threats" and deteriorating law and order in the volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.

[Ethelk2044]

59. He just wanted an excuse to get out. Your post is bull shit.

If you know anything about policy. Like Biden stated if a President does not go after a known Terrorist he will be violating the law. Hillary stated in the last debate. She would not advertise it . Bottom line Obama was right.

[zulchzulu]

56. Musharraf is very unpopular in Pakistan...been that way for years

Maybe you might not know what you're talking about perhaps.

As for Musharraf pulling out of the peace council, it has more to do with his ties with the Taliban and his weak relationship with Karzai in Afghanistan.

Did your head explode yet?

[ljm2002]

60. Obama may have provided a convenient excuse...

...but any foreign leader including Musharaff knows damned well that blather from a presidential candidate does not indicate US policy. The damned election is not for 18 months or so, so between now and then Musharaff now gets to blow off peace efforts and blame it on what some politician said when trying to get elected???

Puhleeze.

[LanternWaste]

62. Not having ruled out any candidates for the primary,

Not having ruled out any candidates for the primary, I think I can safely say this without bias...

"Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc"?

Can you illustrate specific and relevant cause and effect tied directly to Obama?

[beastieboy]

63. Here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070808/pakis... /

SLAMABAD, Pakistan — The government of embattled Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday it may impose a state of emergency because of "external and internal threats" and deteriorating law and order in the volatile northwest near the Afghan border.

Tariq Azim, minister of state for information, said talk from the United States about the possibility of U.S. military action against al-Qaida in Pakistan "has started alarm bells ringing and has upset the Pakistani public." He mentioned Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama by name as an example of someone who made such comments, saying his recent remarks were one reason the government was debating a state of emergency.

[LanternWaste]

64. Obama was mention in the article where...?

Obama was mention in the article where...?