Obama Faces Protests From Pakistani Americans

[Alamom]

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=8227106bd468fbe09e4b60ea555c3647




Obama Faces Protests From Pakistani Americans


Pakistan Link, News Report, Ayub Khan, Posted: Aug 13, 2007

CHICAGO – Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama was greeted by noisy protesters as he arrived to speak at a fund-raiser organized by his South Asian supporters in Chicago. They were protesting his recent remarks about his willingness to launch unilateral military strikes against Al Qaeda havens in the Waziristan area of Pakistan.

A group of about three dozen, mostly Pakistani-Americans, angrily chanted, "Obama, hypocrite," "Peace, Not War," and held placards that read "Obama equal Osama," "War is Not the Answer," "Pakistan is Not Our Enemy."

Sen. Obama sneaked in through the back door of the Mysore Woodlands Restaurant on Chicago's famed Devon Avenue and claimed that he has been misrepresented by the media. He said those who are protesting his remarks haven't read his exact remarks and were instead relying on twisted reports.

>

After his explanation, some Pakistani community leaders and an Urdu newspaper editor tried to pacify the protesters by telling them that Obama had clarified his views and that he was misrepresented by the media. Obama accepted to meet the protester's representatives inside the fund-raising venue. But the protesters demanded that he come outside and apologize for his comments.

"Sen. Obama made his shameful comments in a public venue. He should feel no shame in coming out and apologizing in public," yelled one protester from a megaphone.

The protesters also urged others not to go inside the venue and labeled those who went inside to meet the senator as "traitors." Tense scenes were seen at the protest site as Obama made his quiet exit once again from the back door.

[closeupready]

1. I'm just curious where this war rhetoric stops, because

I have a feeling that those of us who are Americans would like to think that the whole world thinks it's okay for us to act unilaterally under the specific circumstances which Obama laid out in his speech, but that the whole world would defer to us if the tables were turned, and I just think that's incredibly naive. Words matter, and while Obama cleared up his remarks, this protest is just a reminder, IMO, that we hold a president to higher standards - or we should.

[zulchzulu]

2. What a bunch of knuckleheads

Are they big fans of Musharraf, the dictator who runs the country like a police state or Al Qaeda, who would personally like to hang their head on a tree?

Are they going to protest Clinton or Edwards too, since they agreed with what Obama said?

:crazy:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Solon]

5. They are probably concerned about how many of their family and friends would end up being...

collateral damage.

[closeupready]

29. Sadly, it seems that a lot of people don't care.

Well I do and I don't like hearing him say this out loud, whether it's the truth or not, even if the other candidates hold the same position. For the record, I agree that that would be the correct plan of action, but you don't SAY that out loud.

[Alamom]

36. Exactly. I agree with you completely. eom

[tigereye]

24. the Obama/Osama signs seems a little over the top, don't they....

[dionysus]

47. oh no he lost the pakistani-american vote!! all 3 dozen of them...

[murbley40]

49. all 3 dozen?

You are very much out of touch if you think that there are not many Pakistani people in our country. In the area where I live there are large numbers of Pakistani families. They have started businesses ,organized their places of worship and contribute to the community. The company where I work employs more than 3 dozen.

[durrrty libby]

3. Wow.........he snuck in and out through the back door. Brave leader

[Grandrose]

6. Determined no doubt by the.....

Secret Service Detail. Why inflame the situation, but I am sure you knew that!:think: Or maybe not!:dunce:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. I believe he did not have a secret service detail when he ran away from reporters earlier this year

(to avoid questions about his relationship with the indicted Tony Rezko) He changed his route and left out of the back that time as well...

[Ethelk2044]

8. Even worse - Hillary refuses to release her papers as first lady during the Clinton Administration

years

[rinsd]

14. Hillary isn't refusing anything. National archives is. Not that I am shocked you distorted it.

"We're processing as fast as we can," Melissa Walker said.

Not fast enough, in the view of some who have been waiting. A conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch filed suit against the National Archives last month, demanding the release of Hillary Clinton's diaries, telephone logs, daily planners and schedules. In the 1990s, the group filed suits against the Clinton administration that led to revelations about fundraising practices, including Democratic campaign donors being tapped for official trade missions. In the most recent suit, Judicial Watch said it had submitted its request more than a year ago and had received nothing, save for confirmation that the library possessed "a substantial volume" of such papers.

Staffing pressures have prevented the National Archives from keeping up with an expanding workload. In 2002, the agency employed 334 archivists. This year, the number is down to 301. That 10% drop came during a period when the National Archives assumed jurisdiction over two more presidential libraries: those of Clinton and Richard Nixon.

"If we have fewer trained personnel, we are unable to do as many preservation projects as we might like, and we're less able to serve the public in ways we would like to," said Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clintondocs14aug14,1,1086895.story?track=rss&ctrack=3&cset=true

How does it feel to be on the side of Judicial Watch?

[Ethelk2044]

16. Who has control of when her papers are released. She has a say so as well.

She wants to run on her so call experience as First Lady release the papers unles she has something to hide.


A trove of records has been made public detailing the Clinton White House's attempts to remake the nation's healthcare system, following a request from Bill Clinton that those materials be released first. Hillary Clinton led the healthcare effort in 1993 and 1994.

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.

[durrrty libby]

19. Don't worry..MJ is keeping them close to his heart for her. He loves her

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[beachmom]

18. He met with the leaders of that protest. But a mob situation is not

exactly a good idea. I doubt the Secret Service would allow that. He handled this correctly, and I agree that the media has misreported what he said. All he did was say out loud what is currently U.S. policy. Perhaps instead of protesting Obama, these protesters should engage in a real debate with BOTH political parties if they don't like this policy, instead of singling out the one person who was simply honest enough to say what it is out loud.

[ieoeja]

39. On the other hand, he went to them.

Chicago's famous Devon Avenue is famous for one thing... being one of this country's largest Pakistani and Indian communities.

[killbotfactory]

9. hmm...

"Obama said that he did not advocate outright military action but that in case the Pakistani government was unable to take out known Al Qaeda targets in its territory, then the American military could launch targeted attacks. He added that full precautions should be taken to avoid any civilian casualties. He said his foreign policy will focus on diplomacy with all (even the enemies), troop pullback from Iraq, closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, and increased funding for education programs worldwide. At the same time, tough action needs to be undertaken against hardened terrorists. In response to a question about U.S. support for Indian military action against militants and separatists he once again underscored that diplomacy should be the top priority."

[TwilightGardener]

11. What a crazy, reckless foreign policy! Someone needs to stop him!!

[LWolf]

10. Good. He's earned it. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

12. Uh, "Obama = Osama"? He's earned that, for taking a tough stand

AGAINST OBL? I'm pretty sure these "Pakistanis" were plants. Paid for by The Queen. She is, after all, the Rove Candidate on the Dem side.

[LWolf]

44. I think that "taking a tough stand against OBL"

is a calculated piece of political propaganda geared to keep us at war, keep our resources sucked dry by the industrial military complex, and continue to turn a blind eye to conditions at home. I don't think it has anything to do with Osama at all. I don't give a flying fuck WHO is recycling the fear/hate/revenge mongering that got us into Iraq, and is heading us towards Iran.

He deserves it because he is willing to unilaterally invade a country if he doesn't like their participation in the so-called "war on terror." He intends to continue the bullshit "war on terror," and he, like GWB, is willing to unilaterally invade other countries for his own purposes.

It has nothing to do with Hillary, who has her own steaming piles of crap bogging her down. Pakistani-Americans are not the enemy, have every right to protest the unilateral invasion of pakistan, and are not necessarily fans of HRC. While she did enjoy their support in her first senate campaign, her subsequent strong pro-israeli positions have diminished that support.

Is that the state of protest in the 21st century? It's automatically assumed that protesters are planted by someone with an agenda? How about some evidence before accusation?

[Ethelk2044]

17. You are right he is a fool for going after Osama Bin Ladin who killed 3000 Americans

Oh I foget. Like Biden stated a sitting president who knows where Osama Bin Ladin is and do not act would be breaking the law. All Biden Edward and Hillary have all agreed they would do the same.

[LWolf]

42. I don't agree with Biden, Edwards, or Hillary, either.

I don't know why they are relevant to the topic; did they say they were willing to start a war with Pakistan by sending in U.S. troops if they didn't like Pakistan's responses?

Since you popped in, I'll say that I think we've wasted way too many lives and dollars already. It doesn't matter what fear-mongering or chest-beating propaganda anyone wants to float about "getting osama." The time to do that was in 2001/2002. We went to fucking Iraq instead, and put him on the back burner. We wasted lives and money in Iraq for a pack full of lies.

I'll also say that I don't believe that we have the right to invade other countries against their will to achieve our goals. No amount of beating the war drum with pro-mid east war propaganda will change that.

We can keep an eye out. If he surfaces, fine. Where, exactly, is he? That would be a good place to start. Call up the government of the country he's in, contact an international peace-keeping force, and start the process. We can pick him up, if it doesn't require invading other nations without their permission, and playing emperor/bully of the world. If not, we have so many other priorities that should come first.

Let's go after Osama after we've finished rebuilding the Katrina damage, instituted universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, a living wage, abolished NCLB, NAFTA/CAFTA, gotten out of the WTO, signed the Kyoto treaty, and rebuilt all of our decaying infrastructure.

What's the priority? Revenge, or care of our people?

[Ethelk2044]

13. Several Security people have Stated Obama's position is the correct one.

Anyone with common sense knows you need to go after Osama.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. I hope he doesn't apologize.

If they had actually read the speech, they would know exactly what he meant.

What Obama stated is already U.S. policy, as Biden pointed out.

Let them scream and holler in protest. It's a bunch of nonsense.

[Ethelk2044]

22. There is no need for him to apologize when what he stated is abiding by the law.

[zulchzulu]

23. Something the Pakistani protestors might want to read...

Hillary Clinton agrees with Obama:

"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://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/300839.aspx

John Edwards agrees with Obama:

"I believe his speech is a comprehensive, sophisticated approach to terrorism. I was glad to see it recognized the importance of stopping repressive police and intelligence activities in countries threatened by al-Qaeda and terrorism. I'm also glad to see him say clearly that we are not at war with Islam but must partner with Muslims threatened by al-Qaeda. On Pakistan, I think it must be true anywhere that if we know of high value targets and the host government will not act, we have to do so."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/01/weighing_in_on_obama.html?hpid=topnews

Are the protestors going to go protest at their rallies?

[penguin7]

25. Invading Pakistan is a good way to start WWIII

Can Pakistan invade the USA to take out high value targets also?

[zulchzulu]

26. Obama never said he would invade Pakistan....

If you can find the text where he said that, please post.

It will be difficult, because he never said he would invade Pakistan.

[Ethelk2044]

27. Obama never said he would invade Pakistan Those who did not

read his speech keep stating that. The facts is he never said that.

[penguin7]

28. How is going to take out the high value target without invading?

[killbotfactory]

31. Missle strikes could potentially do it

Limited special forces units also.

Bush has already launched missiles into the region without Musharrafs permission, and we are still not in WWIII.

[zulchzulu]

32. We already have troops in Pakistan...since 2002

It would not be an invasion. Pakistan is our ally. We have troops there already. The problem is Musharraf takes millions of dollars and millions of dollars worth of weapons and still protects or doesn't do anything about Al Qaeda.

That's the point. If he won't take care of what is in our national interests and still takes money from us, then what Obama said is what we would do.

Perhaps you don't understand what Al Qaeda is... imagine being forced to live in a 7th century bastardized Islamic fascist state where many things you take for granted would not be allowed...and if you didn't agree, they cut your head off. Not exactly cool in my book... I'd kill the bastards first myself.

It's easy playing parlor games around the bong and saying we should just all "get along", but that's not what I'd be planning on doing if my family or I were threatened by those asswipes.

Believe whatever you want. Heck, plan a trip to Afghanistan in the upper mountains. See what it's like.

[Ethelk2044]

34. He stated to pressure the Pakistan to do so. However, if you paid attention to the news

All Candidates would take the same steps as Obama. Hillary, Biden Edwards because IT IS THE LAW. If a President did not act, they would be breaking the LAW.

[closeupready]

30. That's my question to those who support Obama's statements, but

I have as yet to get a clear answer as to why it's okay for us to send a message that we can do that if we say so, but others can't if we say no.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[rasputin1952]

35. Looking through this thread, I am convinced that some have

adopted the neo-con, "slash and burn, take no prisoners" attitude.

While I think it is fine for people to support their candidates and bring up valid points about other candidates, what I fail to understand is the vitriol that splashes out in threads like this.

Silly me, here I am thinking that the R's were the only one's that eat their own.

I am wondering, over the next year, yes, a whole year, will we all still be tossing grenades and dividing our ranks wherever we can see a chance?

Think of that, an entire year of "slash and burn, death to the infidels, everybody is wrong but me"...WOW

I know we can do so much better than this.

[sandnsea]

37. It'll never stop

There are still personal animosities over 2004. There are still people who choose to believe the worst of Kerry because Dean imploded. There are people who believe things about Edwards because Trippi is running the campaign. It never ends. R's don't eat their own anywhere near the way D's do. I don't think it'll ever change.

[ieoeja]

38. I'm sure this man wished he had protestors helping him out.

[ecstatic]

40. This kind of reads like the trumped up KKK/Confederate flag Dean supporter fiasco

I think some Democrat is orchestrating this crap and it's truly sad and desperate.

[quinnox]

41. Maybe this will teach Obama

that words have to be carefully chosen when running for president.

Obama's inexperience and constant gaffes are killing his chances for winning the primary.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

43. He chose his words carefully. It's not his fault that people are dumb and don't read

what he actually said.

[Ethelk2044]

46. Hillary Obama and Edwards have said the same thing. Edwards came out again today

and said the same thing. This post is full of BS.

[zulchzulu]

48. Maybe this will teach Clinton...

...that she should maybe look at her poll-tested answers before realizing that she agrees with Obama and is on record saying so...

Whatever...

[illinoisprogressive]

45. Actually you can thank the Clinton spin machine and her lapdogs.