ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 3, 2007
Pakistan Fires Back At Obama
Officials Criticize Presidential Hopeful For 'Irresponsible' Comments on Military Strikes
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Obama: I'd Go Into Pakistan
In the face of criticism from rival Hillary Clinton, presidential hopeful Barack Obama says he'd go into Pakistan to fight terrorists, even if that upsets an ally. Karen Brown reports.
-
Video
Eye To Eye: Obama's Stance
Only On The Web: Barack Obama talks to Sharyl Attkisson and makes a bold show of strength by taking a hard line against Pakistan.
-
-
Photo
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama angered Pakistanis by saying that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region if intelligence warranted it. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
-
Photo
Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)
-
-
Fast Facts
Pakistan
Learn about the people, economy and history.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.
Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.
Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.
"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.
But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.
In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.
It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"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. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
The Debate Over Healthcare
-
Video
U.S. Global Military Efforts
-
Video
Obama Wishes Happy 4th
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 125 CommentsWell, now, how are we gonna do that. You don't like the wiretapping program, gotta get court approval or else our civil liberties would be violated, especially if an overseas call is routed through our system and that makes it a domestic call rather than an overseas call which means you are spying on an American. Yeah, yeah, we'll get valuable intelligence. The Neville Chamberlain's up on the Hll want to dismantle the intelligence program as it is and this guy thinks he's gonna get intelligence on high value terrorists. Where's the surveillance, black magic. Gonna pull it outta a hat?
The United States has the right to defend itself from attack by preemptive measures against those who've already attacked us on multiple occasions. The time for Pakastan to complain was right after September 11 when Al Quaeda was infiltrating their country and attacking our troops in Afghanistan, that was a violation of Afghan sovereignty from Pakastan.
We should also demand that we be allowed to interview Professor Khan regarding the transport of nuclear technology to terrorists. That's the least that we should be able to expect from the government in Islamabad in exchange for our military aid which props up their unpopular government.
For quite som time even prior to September 11 we've had a special court in DC which meets secretly to issue warrants for intelligence wiretapping. This court has never denied a warrant that the government has requested and issues rulings within 24-48 hours.
This is who Bush feels he can't go to for a warrant.
Opposing Bush's warrantless wiretaps does not equate to opposing intelligence wiretaps.
Secondly, we may not know precisely what specific rock OBL is slithering under but we do have significant intelligence assets other than wiretaps. We have ariel surveillance that was capable in 1972 to film Nixon & Brehznev walking down the streets of Moscow from space, I think we have a pretty good idea of what set of rocks he's under.
Even if we don't we can locate their bases and the only thing standing in the way of some form of action is Presidential will and fear of what happens in Pakastan.
The Alqaida infiltrated into Pakistan because Tommy Franks let them go at Tora Bora. Since then cooperation has resulted in many Alqaida captures. It is that cooperation that needs to continue, not unilateral attacks.
HILLARY will have something to say about it,
She knows he is closing in on her tired ACT...
GO BARACK.... 2008
IF SHE WINS I WILL NEVER VOTE AGAIN LOL
This is who Bush feels he can't go to for a warrant.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:45 AM : Aug 03, 2007
You are correct in stating that no request has ever been denied. The problem is that you don't
always have the 24-48 hours beforehand to intercept a message. If it can be done in "real" time I don't have a problem with it...I do not feel that this is giving up on my liberties...
Somebody has to clean up the mess.
You're wasting your time talking to mudrose. She doesn't think - Bush tells her what to believe and she does. She'll just keep repeating the same stupid remarks over and over without stopping to learn the actual facts.
Your post for instance - will be ignored.
And these terrorist-harboring countries have the nerve to get their crooked noses out of joint! Until they are part of the solution...they are the problem.
Posted by ibsteve2u at 10:13 AM : Aug 03, 2007
What hypocrites! Obama is alienating allies.
Point noted. If Bush worked with the House & Senate intelligence committees and was up front about the use of warrantless wiretapping and demonstrated even after the fact that he didn't have the time to get a warrant there wouldn't be this suspicion of abuse.
We can't have one branch of government keeping secrets from another at the same time they're selectively leaking what they want.
That's the kind of intelligence gamesmanship that caused all the pre-911 communication problems.
Your post for instance - will be ignored.
Posted by hungry1968
Look Einstein, you can paint me any color you want, except yellow, like you. Your idea of facts is your interpretation of the world according to hungry1968. You should use the moniker "yellow belly".
On the subject of hypocrites, kindly provide your definition of an ally.
Pakastan is our ally because after Sept.11 our government told him if he didn't cooperate with us we would bomb Pakastan back to the stone age. I'm not advocating that crude of an approach, however, it did draw a minimally positve response. Over time, the response has remained what I would consider to be minimal.
Hopefully, Obama's challenge, while being initially met with resistance will ultimately lead to a more meaningful effort.
Obama can't act on his threat for 18 months, if then. I believe Pakastan can do more right now.
hungry1968,
I hear you about Mudrose. I'm a Cleveland sports fan, I'm used to exercises in futility.
Posted by mudrose at 10:31 AM : Aug 03, 2007
mudrose - Another Texas National Guard graduate - or is it a 5 deferment Cheney - Talk the talk but NO Walk the walk!
Democrats as a whole can be aptly labeled "ignorant and naive" on most subjects - except for gouging taxpayers for more money. That's where they are experts...
It's their way of life...
Posted by realpatriot1
Ha. Your points are noted, believe me. They are expressed sincerely and with a certainty of disciplined mind. I see other aspects that aren't as balanced and sometimes it's just too much to reiterate, again and again. The Democratic Party I am sorry to say is morally and intellectually bankrupt, as indicated by the absurdity that comes from their parties leaders. America is in BIG TROUBLE.
None of Democrats running for president are even qualified. Yet we are sure that their "enablers" America's corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press will "continue to prop them up".
Throughout American history this country has only elected two Senators as President........so take all the Senators running for president and eliminate them and you will find our "next President" in the balance.
How's that sound?
Posted by IOWEIGN
While your daughter's in Iraq, are you talking the talking and walking the walk? I served my time in the 60's numbnut. Don't question my servie and I won't question yours.. Another yellow belly braggard.
Posted by mudrose at 10:46 AM : Aug 03, 2007
I served my time 68 to 72 - squirrelly!
Posted by IOWEIGN
Where at the Texas National Guard? Wanna keep up the p/issing contest?
So are the Saudis...
enough said!
Since you're so much smarter than us i'll use your words to make my point.
The terrorists were "supposedly' in Iraq. They weren't there before we got there and they took the express jihad train from Afghanistan to get there. That's where the terrorists have always "actually' been.
I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that distinction, given how much smarter you are.
One_American,
Your way of life is to engage in anme-calling and to offer no real ideas of your own other than you hate liberals.
notblue,
No one said it would be easy or that the natives would greet us with flowers and chocolates. You have to go where the enemy is to find the enemy, we've been wasting our time in Iraq fighting low-level foot soldiers when the command structure is elsewhere.
Posted by IOWEIGN
Where at the Texas National Guard? Wanna keep up the p/issing contest?
Posted by mudrose at 10:51 AM : Aug 03, 2007
USN Electronic Tech PO2 USS Boxer LPH4, USS Cambria LPA36 and USS Nashville LPD13.
How about you??
If the rest of the world stopped giving the US aid and assistance (buying our worthless treasury bills to cover our national debt) we would be bankrupt. lol. We are the world's sickest economy.
Posted by setumstrt9 at 10:55 AM : Aug 03, 2007
There was no connection between 9/11/2001 and Iraq. No WMD, No al Qaeda!
So you are mad at the people who follow a grotesquely distorted version of Islam and you kill a bunch of people following the real Islam? What kind of sense does that make?
In the presidential campaign, its one strike and you are out. You go full steam ahead and hope you don't screw up. If you do, you are history. Winning the presidency is all about being the last one standing.
[Posted by setumstrt9 at 10:55 AM : Aug 03, 2007]
why are the terrorists in iraq?
Let's set one thing straight. We are fighting a Al Quaeda and AQ inspired terrorists in Iraq but the overwhelming majority of the insurgency are Iraqi nationals who have no intentions of attacking America and just want us out of their *** country.
Now that we've totally screwed up their country they could change their minds about leaving us alone. When we invaded the country we freed them from Sadaam and the Baathists. That was good. We did so without a broad-based international coalition including moderate Arabs like Desert Storm. That wa bad. After we overthrew Sadaam we stayed and became an occupying force, Operation Enduring freedom quickly became Operation Enduring Foreign Occupation. That was bad.
Getting Bin Laden. That's still good.
You've now been given a lesson in liberal foreign policy 101.
And yes, mudrose never has anything to say, but unfortunately she says it...
IOWEIGN, thank you for your service, sir.
Posted by random_radar at 11:05 AM : Aug 03, 2007
You're right! Too bad. I actually agreed with him on this issue. We should be going where ever terrorist cells are operating.
If the Pakis won't reach down and find the "stones" to do something about it, then we should......with or without their permission.
How about you?? "
So.... you were a squid aboard sea vessels during vietnam. Definately not something to throw around as some sort of point that your serving is comparable to a Marines' in southern Baghdad.
Since Bush has given up on actually finding bin Laden or his lieutenants, considering them "not that important of a target" in SEVERAL press statements, I'm personally relieved to see 'any' candidate talking about bringing this s.o.b. in. And you know that he's in the region - every bit of intelligence has been suggesting it for SIX YEARS now. So if he happens to be on Pakistans side of the border and you have good intel on it - send a strike, kill him, and then apologize for breaking air space. A lot easier than going through the process of giving him a heads up we're coming.
The American imagination would have it that Bush is the author of the wars, that he is the ultimate villain...He is a figurehead, a "flak catcher" for the "slings and arrows" launched by the opposition to the unpopular and immoral policies for which he fronts. He is hardly the 'great Decider'...but such nonsense paints the bullseye on him and pundits target him--not the true villains behind him...not the Anglo-American oligarchs...the the Zionist henchmen... not the proponents of the New World Order.
The Democratic mainstream will provide this same Establishment with another "front"... another "face"...perhaps a "cleavage" or some other ancillary attribute that is beside the point...but you can rest assured, the Stupid Peoples' War will continue.
She is a snake just waiting to swallow him..
I'm a chick, but there is no way i want her running the office,,,, i would vote for
OBAMA/CANDY RICE 08 now thats food for thought LOL dem and rep
So are the Saudis...
enough said!
Posted by bluestardad at 10:51 AM : Aug 03, 2007
bluestardad, those lies spread by Moore's propaganda film and repeated by our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press...........have been debunked.
I guess you didn't get the "debunked" stories because our corrupt liberal press didn't publishe any........ Gee we wonder why?
Who's switching gears? Bush switched gears from tracking Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, which 80% of Americans and all of our allies in the world supported to trying to occupy a country that didn't attack us.
The Bush strategy is to ignore Bin Laden and place our troops into a highly predictable sectarian civil war with no exit strategy.
Obama's strategy is to hit the terrorists targets that we can and to salvage our gains in Afghanistan. The only reason that seems contradictory to folks like you is that you can't distinguish between a Muslim who poses a threat and a Muslim who doesn't pose a threat, in your simple-minded world we're fighting them all. That only assures that Al Quaeda will ultimately win over the muslim world by default and eventually the war on terror.
You're the ones with no strategy.
So.... you were a squid aboard sea vessels during vietnam. Definately not something to throw around as some sort of point that your serving is comparable to a Marines' in southern Baghdad.
So what is your contribution to the USA??
Completing high school?
That is what Clinton tried back in 1998 and was critized by Republicans---remember their remark 'Wag the Dog'
In response to the 1998 United States embassy bombings following the fatwa, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order, authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. launched an attack using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people.
On November 4, 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, and the United States Department of State offered a US $5 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's apprehension or conviction.
Posted by perception5
Where are these stories? and I ask not to be sarcastic but rather because I'd like to read them.
Posted by actornaught
I try to emulate you.
How about you??
Posted by IOWEIGN
Dustoff 159 - 159th Med. Det.
Allow me to clarify some of your Edwards campaign statements. No one from the Obama campaign compared him to Reagan, journalists from CBS wrote that on their own.
Secondly, where does your boy stand on this issue?
Does Mr. Edwards still think the war on terror is a slogan?
Has he decided what he wants to do as President? he never did decide what he wanted to do as our Senator from North Carolina.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 125 Comments