TV Schedule

Obama threatening to send troops into Pakistan!


  1. BretByron
  2. related topics
Tom Baldwin in Washington
Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

The speech to the Woodrow Wilson Centre was designed to shore up his credentials as a potential commander-in-chief by backing a pre-emptive military action that even President Bush has so far refused to order.

Pakistan, a key ally of the US in the war on terrorism, reacted angrily, advising all American politicians to refrain from inflammatory remarks. “These are serious matters and should not be used for point-scoring,” Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said. “Political candidates and commentators should show responsibility.”

Related Links
Voters confound pundits after TV debate
Obama funds leave Clinton in shade
Clinton goes on Obama offensive over Iraq
Mr Obama’s outburst followed repeated clashes with Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, who in an opinion poll published yesterday leads Mr Obama 43 points to 22.

In a presidential debate last week Mr Obama said that he was willing to meet the anti-American leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during his first year in office without any preconditions.

Mrs Clinton reacted by saying that she would not make any such promise because it might be exploited as a “propaganda tool”. She later described Mr Obama’s comments as irresponsible and naive.

Mr Obama hit back by describing her refusal to meet dictators as “Bush/Cheney-lite”, prompting another withering response from Mrs Clinton: “I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney.”

Much of Mr Obama’s speech yesterday appeared to be aimed directly at Mrs Clinton — without mentioning her by name. Mr Obama once again highlighted his opposition to the Iraq war in 2002 — when she voted to authorise military action — while also implicitly attacking her view that America was safer than it had been before September 11, 2001.

“Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11. It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11,” he said.
BretByron

31 responses // Obama threatening to send troops into Pakistan!

  • "It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11"?

    How about Impeaching Bush and Cheney for prior knowledge and impairing our military to respond to 9/11?

    No, No, Lets not look back but forward towards our goal of world dominance, policing the world and a one-world government.

    How about not funding terrorism, like you proposal for thirty billion dollars to Israel to kill Palestinians, or more money to Afghanistan?
    BretByron
  • "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans."


    What evidence does Obama have to even suggest this?

    Regardless of who is elected, be it Obama or McCain, nothing will "change".
    recommended by  jubal
    SpookyFish
  • That's where they have been at for the last 7 years; Obama is the only one that knows where the real terrorist are, so if you are a supporter of this war... Obama is the one who should have been president 8 years ago so we could have been out of that region by now.
    cerealforeal
  • Actually, that should have been Al Gore.
    JanforGore
  • You can't seriously expect Bush to look for bin Laudin can you? The bin Laudin's are old Bush family friends. Papa Bush was with a bin Laudin when the attacks occurred. They watched it on TV together. Yes, we need to undo the training camps in Afghanistan soon. Should have been done years ago.
  • Fucking Globalist!
  • I find it hilarious that there's outrage over this when EIGHT YEARS AGO BUSH DID THE EXACT SAME THING. Only he wasn't actually looking for terrorists, he was looking for oil. Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11, not Iraq, and while I don't agree with Obama he's at least planning to do something about the actual problem, not a made up one.
  • And just who are these terrorists from 9.11 still in Pakistan and why isn't he then calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment for leading us into a false illegal war? Does he even know who they are? Why he continues to spout the same Bush Bs is disappointing. And I think he is a globalist too now. His speech at the AIPAC convention the day after he supposedly was crowned the nominee clinched that for me.
    JanforGore
  • How do you know this isn't made up?
    JanforGore
  • BretByron
  • Good for him!!
  • This is surprisingly Un-Obama. If he plans to send any I hope it's a small, discreet, and surgically precise special forces group.
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • Obama is a hawk, but he is more compassionate than Georgie pooh....
    jubal
  • I smell a rat...this doesn't add up...seems something is being put out of context...
    PlatoTacius
  • I found the article interesting in its bent to say Obama was attacking Hillary. First of all, why in the world would he? Secondly, is it not more an attack on the failures of the current administration. And thirdly, Bush announcing over grave sites on the 15th that he's going to get Obama before his term ends certianly could be taken to assume Bush thinks it was an attack on his administration. As to Pakistan getting its feathers ruffled, maybe they should reconsider their stand to harbor these terrorists and not be amazed that in our country those running for office have a right to let us know what they would like to do should they be elected to serve us.
    notonourwatch
  • wait I thought Obama inspired hope and change, and all of Dems believe in him, like you did in Hillary until you found out she was a wreck as well.


    Ron Paul - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ - join it and learn
    shadowtrekker
  • Ike - et al

    I dont want Obama or McCain to win, but I know one of them will.

    you 're in a race across the country and your choice is between a horse and buggy and a bicycle.... I'm pissed off that the high speed train is not in the race. that's my point.

    the world is moving too fast to keep electing politicians who make small changes to keep things comfortable, for now. Of course I know my vote counts but does it really count for something good?
    shadowtrekker
  • Instant positive change will be the result of Barack Obama being the next president. When that sentence is said, its not as if it means screw Ron Paul. I would vote for him if he had a chance. When I talk about instant change im talking about a few things. The way we appear to the world will instantly change with a brown man named Barack Obama representing us. Besides him having a non traditional name, he is smart, honest and has spent his whole adult life helping the under privileged. It will be the greatest role model that black or brown children have ever had. Instantly they will know that they can be anything they want including the president of the united states.



    Those issues might mean as much to you but the election isn't about one person. Its not about one issue. The war is another issue. An anti war candidate in the White House cant be a bad thing can it? There are plenty more reasons to elect Obama and twice as many reasons not to elect McCain. Barack Obama is not as radical as Ron Paul but nobody knows what he will do when he stops the sometimes necessary self censorship. Thats just how the game works. Once hes elected he can change the game as opposed to him currently just playing it. Even though hes playing the game hes playing it by his own rules. A grassroots campaign that hes continuing through the general election. Look at how far he has come. Shit, he beat the Clintons!

    Anyway

    What would be a better environment for Ron Paul to get things done? An Obama administration or a McBush administration.

    Ron Paul has so many supporters and they can chose who becomes the next president. They can get in line behind either of the two candidates and possibly change the outcome of what will more than likely be a close race.
    ikeula75

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.