« Quote Of The Day - "Relax And Enjoy It" Edition | Main | Breaking: Bridge over Mississippi River Collapses »

Obama Says He'd Invade Pakistan

First he said he would talk to leaders of North Korea, Iran, and Cuba without any conditions, now he says the US should invade Pakistan, a really dangerous idea since we need Musharraf in power since the person who would replace him should he be overthrown or assassinated would be significantly worse.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "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 won't act, we will."

Jim Geraghty's analysis is right on target:

Look, I'd love to see Zawahiri's head on a pike. And the day may come when the potential benefits of a massive troop influx across the Pakistani border outweigh the risks. Heck, maybe that day comes tomorrow. But Obama acts like this is a simple call, and doesn't mention the potential risk to Musharraf's regime in Pakistan, once the proud, nationalistic Pakistani people learn that Americans have invaded their territory. Is it worth getting Zawahiri if Islamists topple Musharraf from power? Would they get their hands on nuclear weapons under that scenario? Isn't that going from the frying pan into the fire? Some rival might even call Obama's failure to acknowledge the risks "irresponsible and naive."

Indeed.

Update: Wizbang commenter LoveAmerica Immigrant clicked over to Obama's campaign site and noted that that Obama recommends invading Pakistan.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23082.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Says He'd Invade Pakistan:

» Wizbang linked with Obama Says He'd Invade Pakistan

» Bill's Bites linked with 2007.08.01 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup

» Wizbang Blue linked with Bush Agrees with Obama on Pakistan

» Wizbang Blue linked with Right-Wing Chickenhawks on Pakistan

Comments (77)

There are an amusing brigad... (Below threshold)

There are an amusing brigade of spammers posting the identical comment about how Obama was misquoted on a series of blogs regarding this. So I guess the Obama clones are frightened by this gaffe.

Considering that Pakistan h... (Below threshold)
Robin Goodfellow:

Considering that Pakistan has 6 times the population of Iraq, twice the area, many more mountains, is a nuclear armed nation, and comes with a population pre-radicalized for our pleasure, I'm sure this batshit insanebold plan would have none of the problems that have made progress in Iraq slow going at times.

Also, I'm doubly sure that after having ducked tail and run out of Iraq our enemies in other countries would be that much more afraid of American power and resolve and would be enormously discouraged from trying to use the same tactics and techniques as have been used in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq to try to drive out the US.

Kim, To save you th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Kim,
To save you the bandwidth that some liberals may waste in claiming that Obama didn't talk about a troop invasion in his speech. The Obama campaign features the article on their own website (probably proudly too).

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/obama_vows_to_hunt_down_terror.php
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

That's a great find, LAI. ... (Below threshold)

That's a great find, LAI.

Oops, forgot to add that so... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oops, forgot to add that someone may want to cache that article before they delete it!

Democrats are stupid and... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Democrats are stupid and a complete fraud. When are wer going to arrest these shitheads and throw away the key, they are a disgrace putting our Country in danger. Hey Barack, SHUTUP STUPID!

Whatever happened to the Bu... (Below threshold)

Whatever happened to the Bush doctrine of going after the terrorists, no matter where they are? Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush himself abandoned that doctrine himself, what with his letting Iran get away with aiding the insurgents in Iraq (if not killing American soldiers themselves), and his trying to keep Israel from striking hard at Hamas and Hezbollah.

So because Musharaff is supposedly in such perilous shape, we're supposed to let the terrorists have safe havens from which to plan their next attacks against us? I'm sure the families and friends of the next Americans killed by Al Qaeda will be reassured by this realpolitik bull****. No offense to Geraghty, but there's no chance Musharaff loses power - or lets himself lose power - because of this to the Islamists.

You all are as knee jerk in opposing anything put forth by a Democratic nominee as they are in opposing everything Bush wants to do. Funny I didn't hear you all griping when Lieberman said we must be prepared to use force against Iran if they didn't stop doing what they're doing.

And along the same lines, when the Dems in 2002 were complaining that invading Iraq would unleash all sorts of problems, weren't you all rather dismissive (and rightfully so) of that whole 'the sky is going to fall, the sky is going to fall' rhetoric.

"There are terrorists holed... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

"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 won't act, we will."

Read this twice...especially the last sentence...
Sorry so many are afraid to fight the "Real" them over there so we do not have to fight them over here..

nogo, we had "actionable in... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

nogo, we had "actionable intelligence" about terrorist activities in Iraq, too.

So I guess you're saying that it was OK to invade Iraq?

Sorry...I forget..we cannot... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Sorry...I forget..we cannot sent Special forces..SEALS etc..and/or specific air strikes
In Pak....we are saving that for Iran

No need for an invasion...a... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

No need for an invasion...again..if specific info of a specific place...there is nothing that says "invasion"

Actually this is not incons... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Actually this is not inconsistent with the message that the Democrats have been putting out for some time now.

The Democrats have never been an anti-war party; rather, they are simply an anti-Bush/anti-Republican party. They are primarily upset over the fact that a defeat of al-Qaeda and the nurturing of a democratic, capitalist state in the Middle East could be accomplished by a Republican president, with little or no real contributions by them.

The Democrats only encourage the tinfoil hat conspiracy kooks and the Kumbaya peace crowd because they want their votes. If there is a Democrat in the White House the next time we face either an imminent threat (such as an Iranian nuke) or another large-scale attack, they will not hesitate to send out our troops -- especially if said Democrat president is perceived to be "soft" on terrorism -- witness Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc.

(I have angered many liberals on this point, when I suggest that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq just as surely as Bush did; after all, regime change in Iraq was his administration's official policy.)

Of course in such a scenario the Dems will have the unanimous backing of the NYT-WaPo axis, Hollywood, and the chattering intellectual class, because morally and intellectually superior liberals do not make mistakes or act out of petty motives; they only want what is the most fair and the best for the world, regardless of what they do or how badly things go.

But I wonder, where will the tinfoil hat Truthers and Kumbaya crowd turn when that happens?

Sturm, Musharref has alread... (Below threshold)

Sturm, Musharref has already been the target of numerous assassination attempts, you poo-poo'ing the possibility of Musharref losing power is about as convincing as Barney summarizing something for me.

Sorry...I for... (Below threshold)

Sorry...I forget..we cannot sent Special forces..SEALS etc..and/or specific air strikes
In Pak....we are saving that for Iran

10. Posted by nogo war

I doubt you clowns even know what Special Forces are and how many we really have (let's just get more as John Kerry would say).

Does anyone really doubt th... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

Does anyone really doubt that Osama Obama a member (he was reared in that sect and you never leave it alive) of the most violent sect of Islam will attack with or without reason? He would/will attack to remove President Musharraf and install a radical Islamic government. Wake up dhimmi's, you are backing a man as, or more, dangerous to the United States than the Osama that murdered 3,000 Americans.

Nogo, you blithering idiot,... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Nogo, you blithering idiot, sending special forces in, or even sending our warplanes over their airspace without permission, is a de facto invasion.

One doesn't need to send thousands of troops to invade.

ah Steve from Norway..durin... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

ah Steve from Norway..during my work in Navel Intel 1969-72 I worked directly with SEALS..our Neighbor lost her son a SEAL in Afghanistan..
So...CCG...if we were to have direct evidence of a nuke plant in Iran...and were take it out with a strategic strike...that would be the same as an invasion...

Ok ..you folks win...we should never do anything..and let Binny L continue..after all the real-Q threat is in Iraq....

They are primarily upset... (Below threshold)
Brian:

They are primarily upset over the fact that a defeat of al-Qaeda and the nurturing of a democratic, capitalist state in the Middle East could be accomplished by a Republican president

Yeah, Bush is sure on the way to defeating AQ and creating a functional democracy in Iraq. Look out!

You are full of it, nogo. ... (Below threshold)

You are full of it, nogo. Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric. The Bush administration is not doing nothing, but with Pakistan, they are in a balancing act between pressuring Musharref to support our efforts and ensuring we don't push Pakistan into more instability. A lot of our work in Pakistan is done covertly and with grudging cooperation of the Pakistani army. That cooperation has value and must be husbanded carefully.

The Bush administration understands this, Hillary Clinton even understands this, and if Obama were even fit for the office he holds - much less that of President - he would understand this.

Obama is an idiot for hi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric.

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?

No, nogo, you misunderstand... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

No, nogo, you misunderstand me (not surprising... I use facts and logic).

I supported the invasion of Iraq. Still do, in fact. Actually, I supported taking Baghdad and putting a bullet in Saddam's cranium in 1991.

I support invading Iran if necessary to stop their terrorist activities. Same for Syria or any other sponsor of terror.

But you, nogo, are trying to have it both ways. You say it's OK for us to invade Pakistan, and now apparently Iran, because of their terrorist activities, but you refuse to support the invasion of Iraq.

And, I'll bet you that if a Republican President, be he Bush or one of the current candidates, ever does invade Pakistan, you'll be up in arms about that one too.

In fact, I think I will bookmark this thread, just in case that ever happens. I wanna be able to shove it in your face.

stevestrum:Wha... (Below threshold)
marc:

stevestrum:

Whatever happened to the Bush doctrine of going after the terrorists, no matter where they are? Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush himself abandoned that doctrine himself,

Lets rephrase that shall we?

"Whatever happened to Bush being a unilateralist Texas Cowboy who invaded a sovereign country of Iraq?"

It would seem Obama-Rama is saying he agrees with what was once a [Dim]ocrat talking point, become a unilateralist.

As for your "abandoned" comment I guess you forgot about a NATO force, that includes U.S. forces, have NEVER abandoned looking and fighting in Afghanistan.

You and Obama-Rama have also forgot the drone that targeted and fired on AQ operatives in Pakistan a few months ago.

Brain:Where do... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brain:

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?

A better, and more to the point, question - are you in favor of what Obama is purposing? Are you in favor of invading Pakistan?

And what odds would you give that a resolution authorizing it would be passed by the UN Security Council?

Stevesturm, your grasp of t... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Stevesturm, your grasp of the situaion in Pakistan is, well, nonexistant. Musharraf is hanging on by a thread. I doubt he sleeps in the same place twice in a row. This guy is our ally, and there is simply no chance (none whatsoever) his replacement would be as pro-American.

In addition, the Pakistani Army has never, and still doesn't, controlled the "tribal" areas. They don't have the manpower, and they don't have the will. But the people still consider these areas part of Pakistan, and if we invade they will, quite reasonably, consider it an act of war. Why is it liberals think Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire, but then propose invading a nuclear armed country six times its size, with terrain that favors the defenders? Just because you people don't know from which end of the gun bullets exit doesn't mean you don't have to think.

Invading Pakistan is, flat out, the DUMBEST idea I have ever heard from anyone discussing foreign policy. It has no upsides, and the downsides are huge.

If Obama is seriously proposing that as policy, he can certainly be dismissed from the adult table.

Trancredo Wants to Invade S... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Trancredo Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia!!

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=101389

Hey Stevesturn,I s... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Hey Stevesturn,

I sincerly WISH Bush would let the troops secure the Iranian border with extreme prejudice. That happens to be one of the policies I WISH Bush would reverse course on. I also wish he would then use the knowledge gained in that endeavor to then secure OUR borders (mainly the southern border).

Just because I think Barack's position on invading Pakistan is monumentally STUPID, does not mean I'm a rightwing partisan hack that gives a free pass to Bush on all his decisions.

Eric, as well as the other ... (Below threshold)

Eric, as well as the other smart asses:

He's some ally. what good is he to us if he can't keep terrorists from using his country to plan their attacks on us? Screw him and screw worrying like little girls that the clowns who succeed him will be worse.

your logic is flawed. we can't go after Pakistan because he's so hanging on by a thread, because he's under constant threat from those around him, yet we're supposed to believe he has an iron group on their nuclear arsenal? Right.

And it's interesting that your high IQs allow you to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal. 'winning' in Iraq, at least as Bush has defined it, is not going to happen. We're never going to make the Iraqis settle down and stop trying to kill one another. That the surge is 'working' only means the clans have decided that it isn't in their favor right now to go out, they're simply waiting until we leave, and then they'll go back to fighting over control.

And said anything about invading and trying to occupy Pakistan? Just because Bush was dumb enough to try it in Iran doesn't mean that is the model that has to be employed every time in the future. in fact, given the utter failure Bush has been in this regard, I would question the sanity of anyone who did suggest trying to occupy Pakistan.

However that doesn't mean we can't have troops in Iraq (or nearby) striking at terrorist camps in Iraq, the same way we ought to be doing in Iran and Pakistan and anywhere else we find - or even suspect - there are terrorists.

Get off your rabid pavlovian rejection of anything that comes out of a Democrats mouth. most of the time you're justified, but every now and then they actually get something right.

barneyGRUBBLE:... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyGRUBBLE:

Trancredo Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia!!

"Nice" diversion... do you want to get back on topic now?

stevestrum:you... (Below threshold)
marc:

stevestrum:

your logic is flawed. we can't go after Pakistan because he's so hanging on by a thread, because he's under constant threat from those around him, yet we're supposed to believe he has an iron group (grip?) on their nuclear arsenal? Right.

Why do you assume we believe he has an "iron group" on their nuclear arsenal? No one has used that phrase that I can recall.

He has enough of a grip at the moment to prevent that arsenal from getting into the hands of those that would use it against the U.S and others.

Are you in dispute with that scenario?

sure, he has enough of a gr... (Below threshold)

sure, he has enough of a grip right now. And it's only worst case speculation that US attacks on terrorist camps in Pakistan would cause him to lose control, or that whoever took over would be more inclined to use the nukes against US. Since when did America stop acting because we feared the worst thing that could happen? Did Reagan not take on the Soviets because they 'could' have gone off the deep end? I hate sitting around, not doing anything, all because we're afraid of something bad happening. We control our destiny, provided we don't lose the nerve to act. You all are the ones sounded like a bunch of nervous democrats.

You all are the on... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
You all are the ones sounded like a bunch of nervous democrats.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I supported the invasion of Iraq. Still do, in fact. Actually, I supported taking Baghdad and putting a bullet in Saddam's cranium in 1991.

I support invading Iran if necessary to stop their terrorist activities. Same for Syria or any other sponsor of terror.

That was me earlier this evening.

Sure sounds like a nervous Dhimmicrat, doesn't it?

Be very careful when using the word "all." More often than not, it blows up in your face.

A better, and more to th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

A better, and more to the point, question - are you in favor of what Obama is purposing?

Were you in favor of the terrorists "bringing it on"?

According to liberals,we ... (Below threshold)

According to liberals,we have got to stop the senseless murders of innocent civilians in the War on Terror.

Can Obama guarantee that he can take out our enemies in Pakistan without the murder of innocent civilians?

Republicans,Democrats,the CIA,UN,France,Germany,
Britain all said Saddam had Wmd's.
When large quantities were not found,liberals yelled
"Bush lied","Bush is Hitler".

Obama wants to send in special ops or troops to
go after Osama,relying on intel from the CIA,DOD,and
probably other countries.(you know,just like Iraq)
If we invade with the loss of thousands of American
and Pakistani lives and Osama ends up in Iran,
will liberals seek to Impeach the lying,Imperialistic
dictator Obama that will have murdered so many innocent lives with his thirst for power.

Surrender in Iraq to go to the hills in Pakistan.
Deliver thousands of Iraq's to genocidal slaughter,turn over billions of dollars in oil revenues
over to Al-Qaeda and Iran,and probably allow the whole
region to break out into war.

Those "Obama" bumper stickers are starting to look as
stupid as the "impeach Bush" bumper stickers.

OBAMA,SUPER CHICKENHAWK!!!

Now thats a bumper sticker.

Nogo, if you were in "Navel... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Nogo, if you were in "Navel" intel, why did you misspell it? lololol

Next I'm sure you'll tell us about being in "Forse Recon"........

Were you in favor of the te... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Were you in favor of the terrorists "bringing it on"?
----------------------------------
Yup, that 's why our military wants to stay in Iraq so that the terrorists can bring it on. On the other hand, looks like liberals like you don't want to run from AlQ in Iraq. Even more than that, liberals like Brian will come here to spout more defeatist rhetoric when the terrorists blow up more women and children.

BTW, Brian is for invading Pakistan. Otherwise he would say no.

Were you in favor of the te... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Were you in favor of the terrorists "bringing it on"?
----------------------------------
Yup, that 's why our military wants to stay in Iraq so that the terrorists can bring it on. On the other hand, looks like liberals like you WANT to run from AlQ in Iraq. Even more than that, liberals like Brian will come here to spout more defeatist rhetoric when the terrorists blow up more women and children.

BTW, Brian is for invading Pakistan. Otherwise he would say no.

Brian:Were you... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Were you in favor of the terrorists "bringing it on"?

Another diversionary tactic, answer a question with a question.

Why wouldn't I be? Every time they do on the battle field they get their ass handed to them.

Another diversionary tactic... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Another diversionary tactic, answer a question with a question.
------------------------------------
That 's Brian 's trademark. He is here to spin and distract.

Osama Obama=Over Educated I... (Below threshold)
Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1(AW), USN, Retired:

Osama Obama=Over Educated Idiot from the People's Socialist Welfare Republik of Illinois.
No further discussion is required.
The Retired Petty Officer has spoken.

"Funny I didn't hear you... (Below threshold)

"Funny I didn't hear you all griping when Lieberman said we must be prepared to use force against Iran if they didn't stop doing what they're doing."

"Trancredo Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia!!"

I think a couple of you guys are forgetting a very basic fact here:

Tancredo doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. He's talking out of his hind quarters. No one in their right mind takes him seriously. And Leiberman isn't running for President.

Obama is another story. He's actually a front-runner.

What IS interesting though is their selectivity in who each would decide to invade. Particularly those in a party who would cut and run from Iraq only to invade someone else with our "broken army" and alienate those in the Middle East who have lent their support, not to mention the outcry from the rest of the world they're always harping about. "People used to respect us!" Whatever. This is a simple example of "talking out both sides of their faces". Tancredo's statement is consistent with his past. Leiberman is an anomaly, but again, he's not running for President.

Then: "However that doesn't mean we can't have troops in Iraq (or nearby) striking at terrorist camps in Iraq, the same way we ought to be doing in Iran and Pakistan and anywhere else we find - or even suspect - there are terrorists."

Steve, that's almost a throw-away statement there. We're not going to fly over, say Turkey, and drop a bomb on a "suspected" terror camp. And goodness knows there's at least one there. With the left harping that we "used to have respect", do you think that kind of action will improve our standing? Furthermore, we ARE making forays into Pakistan and just because the NYT hasn't gotten their grubby hands on top-secret documents to announce to the world, you can be certain their are operations crossing the Iranian border too.

NOGO, there were no SEALS i... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

NOGO, there were no SEALS in the timeframe you stated.

What we need to keep in mind is what can't be said by either party. The information we are gathering because of our ally Pakistan. There is always a reason.

As for Pakistan having people that may be planning to attack us, we have that on our own shores as well as a lot of other countries.

Obama is just using this war, terror and the military for political points. Every one of his challengers called him naive and reckless. So, you lefties, keep supporting this idiot. I hope he makes it. I would love watching the repbublicans keep the White House. ww

Navel Intel. That's funny,... (Below threshold)

Navel Intel. That's funny, ODA! I didn't catch that. I even got a visual of Nogo navel gazing and then telling us what he came up with.

"while gazing t my naval an... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

"while gazing t my naval and chanting om ...
I came across this oh willie

The U.S. Navy SEALs were established by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 as a small, elite maritime military force to conduct Unconventional Warfare. They carry out the types of clandestine, small-unit, high-impact missions that large forces with high-profile platforms (such as ships, tanks, jets and submarines) cannot. SEALs also conduct essential on-the-ground Special Reconnaissance of critical targets for imminent strikes by larger conventional forces."

Actually, I have nothing ho... (Below threshold)
Ben:

Actually, I have nothing hostile to say about Obama's comments at all. The guy is right. But I would add this:

"What means of espionage would you permit in order to gain that Actionable Intelligence?"

Opposing America's espionage campaigns, then boasting that one would act on "actionable intelligence" is rather foolish.

Well Obama, I support you, if you mean to bring back rendition, data mining, wiretaps, aggressive interrogation and other forms of spying so that you might actually get some "Actionable Intelligence". Of course, if you don't believe in playing the spy game a bit dirty, you won't have any, and your words are hollow. Which is it?

Ben

"Funny I didn't hear yo... (Below threshold)
marc:

"Funny I didn't hear you all griping when Lieberman said we must be prepared to use force against Iran if they didn't stop doing what they're doing."

Oyster... you missed one point in this idiotic comment.

All Lieberman said was to be prepared, just as the U.S. must be prepared for attack from many places and in many forms.

Unless Obama-Rama adjusts what he's quoted as saying he's in no way talking about preparations, he specifically said he would invade Pakistan.

Nice cut and paste nogo, it... (Below threshold)
marc:

Nice cut and paste nogo, it proves nothing.

Who was their first commanding officer? Where is their school at and when was it established? Who was their commanding officer in the 1969-72 timeframe?

Where did you go to the Naval Intel school?

In 1962, President Kennedy ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

In 1962, President Kennedy established SEAL Teams ONE and TWO from the existing UDT Teams to develop a Navy Unconventional Warfare capability. The Navy SEAL Teams were designed as the maritime counterpart to the Army Special Forces "Green Berets." They deployed immediately to Vietnam to operate in the deltas and thousands of rivers and canals in Vietnam, and effectively disrupted the enemy's maritime lines of communication.

The SEAL Teams' mission was to conduct counter guerilla warfare and clandestine maritime operations. Initially, SEALs advised and trained Vietnamese forces, such as the LDNN (Vietnamese SEALs). Later in the war, SEALs conducted nighttime Direct Action missions such as ambushes and raids to capture prisoners of high intelligence value.

The SEALs were so effective that the enemy named them, "the men with the green faces." At the war's height, eight SEAL platoons were in Vietnam on a continuing rotational basis. The last SEAL platoon departed Vietnam in 1971, and the last SEAL advisor in 1973.

You can read all about at this obscure website called www.navyseals.com

Congrats, gang. You've let ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Congrats, gang. You've let nogo and Barney steer the discussion away from the glaring double-standard of supporting an invasion of an ally while opposing the invasion of an enemy.

Go back to the thread, here... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Go back to the thread, here is a godd discussion on Obama 's foolishness. It shows the trade-mark of selective quoting that is often used by liberals like Obama, Barney and their fellow travelers in the media. Since we are not perfect, they can always find sth to criticize. This is the same perfection fallacy that the left has used over the years for their destructive criticism/undermining of America.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGZjMTIwMjFjNmRjNGZlZGNiZDhlMjYwZWExMGRhOWM=
The decision not to go ahead with the 2005 mission was regrettable -- assuming it would have succeeded, that is. But Senator Obama's umbrage notwithstanding, that was not the end of the game. Instead we chose to fight smarter rather than harder. Over the next two years there followed a series of much less risky missile strikes on the same type of targets. On May 7, 2005, high-ranking al Qaeda operative Haitham al-Yemeni was taken out by a Hellfire missile attack in North Waziristan. On December 4, 2005, Hamza Rabia, reportedly al Qaeda's #3, met the same fate. On January 13, 2006, four al Qaeda operatives were eliminated in a similar manner in Damadola. This attack narrowly missed al-Zawahiri, but killed his son-in-law, Abdul al-Maghribi, who helped run al Qaeda media operations. Al-Zawahiri was again targeted (unsuccessfully) on October 30, 2006, in a missile strike against an Islamic school in Chingai, Pakistan.

All of these attacks were plausibly deniable, and none took place with Pakistan's permission, at least not publicly. In fact the Pakistanis found ways to explain away around the obvious, such as stating that one of the explosions was not the result of a missile strike but simply an accident while the terrorist was making bombs.

By the way, for those of yo... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

By the way, for those of you who claim Pakistan "isn't doing enough" to stop the Islamists, you might want to pay closer attention to the news:

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces, backed by helicopter gunships, killed 18 Islamist militants in fighting in the troubled North Waziristan tribal region on the Afghan border on Tuesday, officials said.

But I am sure the Obama supporters didn't want to hear that.

Libreal foreign policy in o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Libreal foreign policy in one sentence: kissing up to our enemies and humiliating our allies.

This is also funny. The lib... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This is also funny. The liberal "defeat at any cost" crowd seems bent on explaining away the surge success. While the left proclaims the terrorists as succeeding every time they blows up more women/children, this time a weather guy proclaims the reduction of casualties is due to global warming. Also read the link on the fog of anti-war.

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010411

More solutions from the "Ma... (Below threshold)
jerseychris:

More solutions from the "Magic Negro":

Energy: invade Canada
Immigration: invade Mexico
Healthcare: invade Cuba
Education: invade New England

but under no circumstances should we invade Iraq.

And this one points out ano... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And this one points out another example of the less than honest selective quoting from certain liberals. The blatant hypocrisy of liberals is in full display here: Bush/Drumsfeld at least were careful not to insult our allies publicly. The liberals just cavalierly talk about invasion of another country, supposedly our ally on the GWOT. Liberals are truly a national threat to our security.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWUxZGUyYjRhZjE0MWI1OTJiYTY0NzNhYmJmMjY3Nzk=
What's more, every serious person knows the United States won't invade Pakistan, even with Special Forces -- since the reason we cancelled the proposed action against Al Qaeda in 2005 is that it was going to take many hundreds of American troops to do it. This isn't 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness. It's an invasion, with helicopters and supply lines and routes of ingress and escape. It would have had unforseen and unforeseeable consequences, but it would have been reasonable to assume the Pakistanis would have turned violently against the United States and hurtled toward Islamic fundamentalist control.

You know what's funniest ab... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

You know what's funniest about that? He made those remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

The only way to make that funnier would be if he had made them at the Jimmy Carter Center for Appeasing Communist and Islamic Dictators.

<a href="http://corner.nati... (Below threshold)
jersey, inappropriate comme... (Below threshold)

jersey, inappropriate comment.

Robin; "and he's clean."</... (Below threshold)
jerseychris:

Robin; "and he's clean."

Another diversionary tac... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Another diversionary tactic, answer a question with a question.

Oh, you're opposed to that, eh?...

Brian: Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?

marc: A better, and more to the point, question - are you in favor of what Obama is purposing? Are you in favor of invading Pakistan?

Just another example of you attacking behavior in others that you yourself have no problem exhibiting. I bet if I called you an "asswipe" you'd complain about me using bad language.

Brian, the founder of the s... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian, the founder of the spin club, has come back for more distraction. Here is his original post to distract from the main point again. Just like JFO, Brian cannot stop being a hypocrite just for once. He is here to spin and distract. Try to divert with a silly question. Then Brian got asked a question. SO he tried anything not to answer the question whether he supported invading Pakistan. This is another example of the level of honesty we can expect from Brian.



Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric.

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?

Then he got the answer

Yup, that 's why our military wants to stay in Iraq so that the terrorists can bring it on. On the other hand, looks like liberals like you WANT to run from AlQ in Iraq. Even more than that, liberals like Brian will come here to spout more defeatist rhetoric when the terrorists blow up more women and children.

BTW, Brian is for invading Pakistan. Otherwise he would say no.

Brain, Here is a chance for... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brain, Here is a chance for you to be honest.

Do you support invading Pakistan as Obama suggested?

Brian, please don't be obtu... (Below threshold)

Brian, please don't be obtuse. It's not whether we think invading Pakistan is a stupid idea - even though it is. It's the hypocrisy (or is it irony, I forget) of talking about how bad it was to invade Iraq on intel he's getting from the same instutions whose intel he says is actionable enough to ivade a nuclear Pakistan.

Gah!

Brain, many of us have answ... (Below threshold)

Brain, many of us have answered the question without the fear of your snark. Why are you so afraid to? You've successfully skirted the issue until now. Why not just answer it?

C'mon - pleeeeez.

It's not whether we thin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's not whether we think invading Pakistan is a stupid idea - even though it is. It's the hypocrisy (or is it irony, I forget) of talking about...

Exactly. Which is why marc's "diversionary tactic" of answering my question about rhetoric with a question about whether I agree with Obama is so amusing.

Well, it seems I did finall... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well, it seems I did finally get an answer to my question, "Were you in favor of the terrorists 'bringing it on'?"

Why wouldn't I be? Every time they do on the battle field they get their ass handed to them.

Why wouldn't you be??!! Maybe because of this!

Yup, that 's why our military wants to stay in Iraq so that the terrorists can bring it on.

Nice. So here you have two people openly admitting that they see nothing wrong with encouraging attacks on Americans. Just great.

Brain, many of us have a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brain, many of us have answered the question without the fear of your snark. Why are you so afraid to? You've successfully skirted the issue until now. Why not just answer it?

Afraid to? Skirted? Nothing of the sort. I was just resisting the attempt to divert from my question about "silly rhetoric" by attempting to make it about whether I agree with Obama. It was a disingenuous attempt to change the subject, not a serious question.

However, since you asked so nicely, no, I do not agree with Obama's statement. I think we should be putting significantly more pressure on Pakistan than we are now (are they "with us or against us" by harboring OBL?), but Obama's comment was ill-considered.

So, now that I've addressed the diversion, perhaps someone will answer my original question.

C'mon - pleeeeez.

Brain, Here is a chance ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brain, Here is a chance for you to be honest. Do you support invading Pakistan as Obama suggested?

No I don't. Now here's a chance for you to be honest. Do you support Bush verbally inviting the terrorists to attack us?

Brain, Here is a chance for... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brain, Here is a chance for you to be honest. Do you support invading Pakistan as Obama suggested?

No I don't. Now here's a chance for you to be honest. Do you support Bush verbally inviting the terrorists to attack us?
------------------------------------
Yes, the terrorists will attack us in any case. Let them bring on us against our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Now, can you answer my question? Can you be honest just for once?

Obama is an idiot for his s... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric.

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?
-------------------------------------
I answered your question. Now can we agree on Obama 's silly rhetoric?

LAI, in the very same <a hr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

LAI, in the very same post, you quoted my answer to your question, and then also told me to answer your question!

I don't often use this, but... LOL!

Brian, Here is your... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Here is your effort at "playing" game. You asked us to address your original question and I did. Here is your original post again. So I asked a simple question again (after all this discussion). Why is it so hard for you to answer my question?

-------------------------------------
I answered your question. Now can we agree on Obama 's silly rhetoric?
------------------------------------

Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric.

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?

Why is it so hard for yo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Why is it so hard for you to answer my question?

Maybe it's because you're a complete and total moron.

LAI: Do you support invading Pakistan as Obama suggested?

Brian: No I don't.

LAI (after you copied my answer into your OWN POST!): Now, can you answer my question? Why is it so hard for you to answer my question?

So to recap, you're stupid, blind, a liar, you favor inciting attacks against Americans, and you have no short-term memory.

So to recap, you're stupid,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So to recap, you're stupid, blind, a liar, you favor inciting attacks against Americans, and you have no short-term memory.
------------------------------------
Finally showing your true color of a liar and hypocrite. Cannot be honest even once right, Brian? So you don't want the terrorists to bring it on against our troops, Brian?

You brought this up, Brian, so why it is so hard to give an honest answer now.

-------------------------------------
Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric.

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?
-------------------------------------
I answered your question. Now can we agree on Obama 's silly rhetoric?

If this is your answer,<br ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If this is your answer,
Brian: No I don't.
so does it mean that you agree with Marc on the simplistic and silly rhetoric of Obama? If I assumed the answer is yes, then you simply tried to distract the discussion with your original post. I gave you the chance to be honest with your claims, Brian.

-------------------------------------
Obama is an idiot for his simplistic and silly rhetoric.

Where do "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or against us" fit in this Silly Rhetoric scale of yours? Are they idiot level, or something else?
-------------------------------------

So you don't want the te... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So you don't want the terrorists to bring it on against our troops, Brian? You brought this up, Brian, so why it is so hard to give an honest answer now.

It's very easy for me to give an honest answer. No, I honestly do not want the terrorists to attack our troops. How sad and shameful that you do.

As for all of your other repetitive nonsense, I answered your question. You can read it as many times as you want, but I see no need to copy and paste my answer to you again.

Brian:I bet if... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

I bet if I called you an "asswipe" you'd complain about me using bad language.

No I'd just call you an asswipe, yet again, for still attempting to defuse why you were called one in the first instance.

It's very easy for me to gi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It's very easy for me to give an honest answer. No, I honestly do not want the terrorists to attack our troops. How sad and shameful that you do
-------------------------------------
Since you seem to be slow to understand and try to spin again, let me take your question and explain slowly to you (unless you are only interested in dishonest spin).

(1) Challenge the terrorists to bring it on against our troops (so that they can get get annihilated) and mock their cowardice for attacking women/children

(2) Reid/Pelosi holds a press conference every time the terrorists blow up more women/children as proof that our military has failed.

So you think it is smarter to do (2) since you are a supporter of Reid/Pelosi? Or should you be ashamed of (2)? Can you give an honest answer now?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy