Obama: I never called for invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan

[Ethelk2044]

SIOUX CITY — Comments he made regarding sending U.S. troops into Pakistan stayed with Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama for a second week.

When Obama returned to Sioux City on Monday for the second time this year in his pursuit of the presidency, the second question from the audience was from a man who wanted Obama to explain what he meant last week in comments about sending troops into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Obama said there was “misreporting” of his comments, that “I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan.” He said rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a “diplomatic surge,” and U.S. troops should be withdrawn within a year.

Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were “actionable intelligence reports” showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if “the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling” to go after the terrorists.

Obama said bin Laden had a hand in training terrorists who killed more than 3,000 Americans in the 9-11 attacks, and therefore bin Laden should “not be able to feel complacent” and train more terrorists.

“Does that give you what you need?” Obama asked.

The man responded, “Thank you.”

Battling a few disruptions from the crowd, Obama kept his composure while spending three-fourths of the hour event at Irving Elementary School on answering questions.

The majority of his prepared remarks centered on his quest for change in Washington, D.C., to throw over the influence of lobbyists who have “disproportionate influence” and stand in the way of real change Obama contends Americans want in health care, energy and supporting rural communities.

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/08/06/latest_news/doc46b7d1a20878b441259763.txt

[beachmom]

1. Excellent. I KNEW this was what he meant, and I'm glad he is

blatantly saying that. Unfortunately, it's not just the MSM that has been misreporting what he said. It's lefties and supporters of other candidates on the blogs, too. I hope his remarks here show you he was NOT advocating an invasion of Pakistan.

[Ethelk2044]

2. Most Clinton supporters trying to Smear as always

[beachmom]

5. Actually, in this case, it would be an imcomplete report to only

single out Clinton supporters. I found negative things said by supporters of almost all the candidates, only after finding out that their own candidate agreed with Obama. I also ran into some lefty folks (not naming names, but this was someone supposedly respected in the left blogosphere, who was DEAD WRONG on this issue) at YearlyKos who insisted Obama wanted to "invade Pakistan", and sure wouldn't listen to me when I said that wasn't the case.

[liberal N proud]

3. But the media is telling the sheep a different story

And they will not bother to clear this up. The story will end with Obama wants to attack Pakistan

[Sweet Freedom]

4. You might want to cross-post this in the Debunker

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=284

[Onlooker]

6. Where did Hillary say he called for an invasion?

Where did Hillary or anyone else say Obama called for an invasion?

This is what Obama said:

"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-Qa'eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Barack Obama said at the Woodrow Wilson.

This is what Hillary said:

Clinton also said she was uncomfortable with Obama's decision to publicly discuss operational details of fighting Al Qaeda, suggesting it could compromise efforts to kill terrorists.

"I am concerned about talking about it," she said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants.

"How we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed, for obvious reasons," Clinton said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama3aug03,0,5250958.story?coll=la-politics-campaign

[ellacott]

7. Who said Clinton said this?

But her supporters have definately been saying this.

[Onlooker]

8. Do you have a link?

Or are you talking about the sort of chit-chat that goes on in DU, where people often talk off the cuff and you can always find examples for virtually anything?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

32. a link?

dude it's been all over GD: Politics for two weeks. Some of its chit-chat, but the same 5 people pop saying the same debunked talking points in different threads.

[zulchzulu]

11. Hillary Clinton agreed with Obama's statements on Musharaff

"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://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates

Unless I'm mistaken, she agreed with him. I guess we could pull out an old Bill Clinton trick of "define what agree means"... accusing Obama of being "careless" or "naive" while agreeing with him is not a World I understand... call me a realist.

[Ethelk2044]

14. I never said Hillary said it. Read my post again. I said Hillary Supporters

Such as the ones here on DU and MDC all said he was pushing for an invasion. Also, Hillary supporters in the media mainly CNN has been pushing her agenda heavily. He never said he would invade.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. The way the press twisted his speech around to promote hillary was shameless

[zulchzulu]

10. K&R for the truth n/t

[Jim__]

12. Read Obama's complete speech.

Find the text: "Read the full speech below the fold" and then the full text of the speech.

From his speech:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.



...

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

...

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.


...

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can’t just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.

What Obama said was clearly inflammatory toward Pakistan. This was a prepared speech. Look at the reaction from Pakistan. The things he said showed extremely bad judgement on his part. if he couldn't anticipate how Pakistan would react, that's only further bad judgement.

[Ethelk2044]

13. Try to spin as you wish. He never said that. People like you try to spin it that way, but he never

said he would invade Pakistan.

[Jim__]

15. Just look at Pakistan's reaction.

Both the government and the Pakistani radicals. It's an extremely volatile situation in Pakistan, and he just inflamed; and it was completely unnecessary.

[Ethelk2044]

17. He did not inflame it. It was the MSM and people like you taking his words

out of context.

[beachmom]

19. Pakistan is a highly anti-American country. They'll use any

excuse to protest. I mean, based on polls, Obama is #2 for even getting nominated for the Dem spot. He's not the president. Why are they reacting to him like this? Because it's what they do.

[venable]

16. didn't he say troops on the ground in pakistan?

yes, that's not 'invade', but it sure isn't 'diplomatic surge'.

[Ethelk2044]

18. Read what he was saying below. It does not say to attack Pakistan. It clearly states

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists – probably in the tens of thousands – who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world’s most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

[Jim__]

22. He said he'll get onto the right battlefield in Pakistan.

Directly from his speech:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

No one needs to misquote him in order for Pakistan to find that inflammatory.

[closeupready]

24. Agreed.

n/t

[killbotfactory]

39. The terrorists are inside the Pakistani border

They attack us in Afghanistan, then sneak across the border. That doesn't mean we are going to go send a brigade of marines into Pakistan. The other part of his speech dealing with Pakistan makes it clear he will do everything in his power to convince Pakistan to work with us in taking them out when we find them.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Never said it?! It's a QUOTE!

It also gets worse the more you look at it. Not only is he talking about going on the the "right" battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he's talking about "the world's most deadly weapons" and making murky messianic comments about "restoring our 'values'". In light of his bringing up the issue of religion, the latter issue--which doesn't get much comment around here--is especially chilling: not only does it sound like some kind of religion-based code of conduct, it sounds like some kind of wedge to be used against the muslim world. That's the last thing we need right now.

The very idea that he can squirm his way out of things he obviously said is bad enough, but to try to rewrite history is an Obamination and cannot be tolerated if there's to be any fairness in this process. The problem is this: he makes glib, broad-strokes pronouncements and TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY for either having made them or for their repercussions.

Once again, it's often more important what one said or what it seems one said than what one meant. A president is ALWAYS on record and there will always be people itching to twist his/her words; part of the job is to be precise and cautious. This Soviet-style ever-changing history is bad enough, but to flatly deny reality is a brazen expression of being above the law. Just because one has pronounced him "good" doesn't mean he doesn't have to watch his big, sloppy mouth.

What's most irritating is that many of the extreme Obama partisans who demand that he be given CONSTANT breaks for his many missteps are precisely the same people who hold his opponents to the strict words spoken and the narrowest interpretation of them.

At least some of his supporters realize how disastrous these two incidents (violating Pakistan and nuclear waffling) are.

This is juvenile and deeply dishonest. To respond in kind to the tenor of the denial: he said it, he said it, he said it.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

35. if it's a QUOTE then post the QUOTE

where he says he wants to invade Pakistan. Does he want to topple their government too? Does he want to kill all the Muslims there? How far overboard do you want to go based on what he actually said?

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." <-- this is the QUOTE

[PurityOfEssence]

38. ...getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That's a direct quote.

Our combat forces are not currently posted in Pakistan, at least not officially. To enter a sovereign country with military forces WITHOUT their permission is to INVADE. What is difficult to understand about this? This is undeniable, by definition and OBVIOUS.

The fact that he's unclear about his belicose ravings doesn't make it "nicer", it makes it worse. Even using your quote, what the hell do you think the word "act" means, stand on the other side of the border and shout insults? It means that we'd send something in there. Okay, maybe we'd "merely" bomb a sovereign nation and not actually put in any durable military forces so it wouldn't be an "invasion", but that's still a gross violation of international law and a slap in the face of an ostensible ally.

That doesn't apply here, because the quote you're using isn't the one to which I refer; the one in the subject line of this reply IS, and it's disgusting. That means he considers Pakistan a "battlefield" and one upon which we should be fighting. That would NECESSITATE invasion. Just because he doesn't use the word means nothing.

I was VERY clear about this in the preceding post.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

40. respectfully, sir, you are incorrect

Pakistan IS a battlefield, whether we want it to be or not. We've also been operating in coordination with Pakistan since 2002 INSIDE THEIR "SOVEREIGN" BORDERS. So half of your argument is rendered meaningless right there. We've already been there. We're already there. In your terms, WE'VE ALREADY INVADED. Maybe it's not being broadcast on the nightly news, but it's true.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9514/#5
Have U.S. personnel operated in Pakistan?

Yes. U.S. soldiers have joined Pakistani troops on raids in the tribal border regions, and the FBI is contributing information and agents to the pursuit of al-Qaeda holdouts. U.S. officials say they need Americans on the ground because the Pakistani military is not doing enough on its own, and Pakistan-watchers say the government remains reluctant to pursue terrorists at home because it fears an internal political backlash. Moreover, Pakistan has not wanted to launch large-scale military operations against al-Qaeda while many of its troops have been amassed along the Indian border due to tensions over Kashmir, a festering conflict that has flared up several times since India and Pakistan gained independence.

also see page 21 at this link.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31624.pdf

Obviously, this is a sensitive issue. No one denies that. But the foundation of your argument is factually incorrect. If you don't like how he said that, that's another thing. But that's semantics and we're talking substance.

[PurityOfEssence]

44. I still disagree

I'll take this off the board later, but I don't see that you've made your case here. I DO, however, appreciate the tone and wish others could be as civil.

I'm well aware that we've conducted joint operations and operations in Pakistan on our own and with the Pakistanis' blessing, but unless something drastic has happened of late we don't have combat troops stationed there, which is what I said. As for the assistance or permission of the Pakistanis being secured for the Obama hypotheticals, that's almost by definition NOT the case.

It's important to separate the various statements and parse them as different pronouncements, as they are. Let's separate these two: the "battlefield of Afghanistan and Pakistan" and the hypothetical "action" to be taken against particular adversaries. Perhaps Musharraf's permission would be sought and granted for expanding the battle into Pakistan on a more regular basis; if so, this would not be an "invasion", since the government's permission was granted. If, however, we went in to hit targets which Musharraf refused to pursue, that would be, BY DEFINITION, a violation of sovereignty. The whole premise of the latter hypothetical is that it would be done in spite of the sovereign government of an ostensibly allied nation.

Thus, since my justification of others' summation of his statements as endorsing "invasion" is based on the "battlefield" quote and not the "action" quote, perhaps this doesn't necessitate invasion. Perhaps he'd get permission for us to be on the "battlefield" in Pakistan and he'd only violate the sovereignty of Pakistan in the other instance with an unannounced and unsanctioned airstrike, which isn't all that clearly an "invasion". Still, the underlying fact remains the same: he's taunting an ally who's in a very precarious position and threatening to defy the man and his government by raining unsanctioned destruction on sovereign territory. He's also insulting and intimating duplicity or cowardice (or both) in a situation where an ally's sitting astride a powder keg with nuclear weapons.

None of this is wise, and the true misstep here is making macho, broad-strokes pronouncements in a VERY volatile environment. The greatest mistake here is the glibness with which he makes sweeping statements and the way he backpedals to deny culpability. His performance at the Chicago Forum (mercifully they didn't call it a "debate") was a mess; only true supporters or corporate media hacks are going to love that bad tippy-toeing. He tried to erase the past by talking about the "mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan"; there are no such things: you're in either of the two countries. If it sounds picky for me to say that, it's just monumental bullshit prevaricating twaddle for him to duck reality like that. Over and over he said that he was saying that he'd work with Musharraf and all that and that he'd said it repeatedly, but if you read his comments of late, that's simply not the case.

So, since we're not BASED there, if we launch an uninvited incursion, that's an INVASION. The fact that we've been invited (or tolerated or assisted) before means nothing. To your credit, though, the "battlefield" quote was not linked to the hypothetical of doing an end-run around Musharraf should he not act on actionable intelligence, it was just within a matter of days. Perhaps he'd just use a mere deadly airstrike that doesn't leave anyone behind. It's stretching it to call an airstrike an "invasion", although since we're projecting military force into another country it's a reasonable stretch. Thus, I'll stand by the statement: that, too, is an "invasion" and we'd be "invading" their airspace to do so; I wish he'd stand by his quotes or admit some kind of wrong, instead of huffing and "clarifying".

The problem is his lack of specificity itself. If he won't take action, we will. "Action" is a pretty thick book of options with all the toys the C-I-CUS has, isn't it? If they're not delineated, one can fairly assume that it's a really big table with all sorts of things on it. That's why he was asked about nukes; he was unclear in the first place.

He never said just how he'd take out such a target, and this is the real problem: vague certainty about projecting military power to cause death.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

46. sometimes i'm not so civil

and I regret that. I'm trying to do better.

Getting into these kinds of specifics over a hypothetical may be useful to the voters, but I think you'll notice candidates rarely get that detailed. Conventional wisdom is that Kerry did too much nuance and it cost him, and I think I agree.

It's also my understanding that we do have military bases in Pakistan, currently in use. We are based there. That being said, it's still true that Pakistan would be pissed if we struck without their support.

The alternative is to not attack, and let high value targets slip away. Pakistan may be an ally, but they're not like the British. They supported the Taliban pre-9/11 if that tells you anything.

[PurityOfEssence]

50. They're definitely odd bedfellows, alright

It's sort of like what FDR said about Anastasio Somoza Garcia: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."

Just looking at a map should sober one up a bit about what kind of a precarious position we're in over there: Afghanistan is land-locked, surrounded by Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and little slivers of India and China. The three old Soviet Republics would be the only way to supply an effort in Afghanistan if Pakistan turned against us, and none of them is too thrilled with us. Not only that, the route by which supplies would get there is VERY long and expensive.

Tweaking them in public is NOT particularly wise, and trying to back away from statements is greasy. People see this.

Just watching the "forum" last night, it was nauseating the way Obama shifted and dodged as he rewrote history, and it's REALLY disturbing to read in other threads how he was so damned brilliant, even to the point of being "god". (That's not "a god" or "associate god", mind you...)

Over and over, Obama used the term "the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan" in attempts to make it sound like that's what he'd been saying all along. This was transparent repetition in an attempt to erase the past. (There's no such place, by the way, so the very phrase sounds deceptive on even the most casual reading.) Over and over, he talked about how he'd always been saying that we should work with Musharraf and that only once did he say we'd go around him if necessary. This isn't a fair characterization of his recent statements at all. He hasn't endlessly praised Musharraf or repeatedly voiced sincerity about working with him. This is deliberate covering of his tracks and deceptive rewriting of history. There's a VERY alarming habit about this man: he tells us what he wants to have said as if that's what he said.

It only takes a casual verbal slip to cause a president a whirlwind of woes, and as far as I can see, he's the only candidate to prompt public demonstrations in an allied nation with flag burnings. I can't even think of a time in the recent past where a candidate prompted something like this.

The argument that the Pakistanis are crazies or Taliban sympathizers and should thus be ignored for their ire is not only wrong, it's COMPLETELY wrong. We need them, and we need to know who and what they are and work accordingly. The pompous arrogance of sneering at them as enemy sympathizers with whom we'll do as we please is dangerous and goes a long way to reinforce the widely-held belief that we're all just Ugly Americans.

Quibbling about whether the word "invasion" is justified or not distracts from the real point. The real point is that this guy's just another strutting American telling the rest of the world that they'd better shape up and dance to our merry tune or we'll use military force on their territory, against their people and without their permission whenever we damn well feel like it. That's not how you win friends and influence people, and if we need to learn anything these days, it's that we simply don't have the numbers and resources to smash everyone who annoys us.

His statements were reckless, his deceptive covering of his statements shows a feeling of privilege with an underpinning of dishonesty and the water-carrying being done by many of his fervent supporters (and in some cases, disciples) is deeply disturbing. He's a mortal, and he needs to be judged like the rest of the lowly earth-tredders. When he pisses people off, he needs to spend more time mending fences than twisting and dodging to show that he didn't say what he actually said and bellyaching that he's being picked on. He brought this upon himself.

And yes, the word "invasion" still stands. If we have active combat bases on Pakistani soil, that's news to me, but if we're launching other troops into a sovereign nation without permission, that's still an invasion. If we're "merely" doing some kind of cruise missile strike or something, it's "invading" their airspace. It's not particularly nice regardless, and it's no way to treat an ally. Obama's original statement was to show everybody that he meant business (whereas everybody else was just some kind of cream puff) and this kind of puffery isn't what's needed right now.

We can't piss all over allies like this, and much as Obama thinks he can rewrite history, the only ones for whom it plays are his most blinded partisans.

It's VERY alarming that these issues are so hard-fought with so many people, but it is heartening to hear the dismay from quite a few supporters about his actions on these matters. This is a character issue, and he's hurt himself a great deal here.

It may thrill the partisans that he's unwavering and tries to split hairs and twist words to further sustain his fantasy of being unfairly singled-out, but the more he does it, the more the rest of us just get disgusted. Character matters.

[Odin2005]

20. Methinks the Obama-bashing Hillaryites need to apologize for there smearing.

:grr:

[Ethelk2044]

21. I do not Think they are Big enough to admit when they were wrong. It takes a strong person to do

that.

[durrrty libby]

29. Oh really. In another thread you just blab out

"Hillary is full of Corruption"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3431821&mesg_id=3432033


What kind of person does that???? Not a wit of back up, just blatant libel

Apparently you are as big a hypocrite as your candidate.


"Obama finesses his lobbyist ties. Is his attack on Clinton hypocritical?"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3431893

[sandnsea]

34. I think the mods need to apologize

Posts that said Hillary was going to let bin Laden go free were removed; posts that said Obama was going to invade were allowed to stay.

[closeupready]

23. No apologies from me.

While his answer here is appropriate, it can not be denied that the tone of his original response was swaggering, as a means of projecting toughness to deflect earlier criticism from the Clinton camp that he was irresponsible and naive to say that we should talk with Iran and Chavez, et al. (rather than be tough on them). Many people who are tired of eternal warfare are uncomfortable hearing a presidential candidate talk in this manner. We want to get away from that, which is what we have now.

[jillan]

25. Oh - boy ~

Tell me he is not setting himself up for the flip-flop label

[beachmom]

26. No, he's not. His speech never said he wants to "invade Pakistan"

like you insisted it did. Now with his additional remarks, are you prepared to say that you were wrong?

[jillan]

28. Beachmom - I really don't know how else to interpret this:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will. "

And all I was saying was that he better be careful, because if he becomes our nominee, and you don't think
the RW will use this against him - you better think again. I sure as heck don't want to hear that phrase again.

[Inuca]

33. "actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets"

This means a surgical strike of some sorts, NOT invasion. That his tone and demeanor in saying this was quite bellicose is a different manner, but IMHO to an objective observer he never said nor implied invasion.

[durrrty libby]

27. General Clark was none too pleased with Mr Obama

Obama's irresponsible remarks further showcase his naiveté and inexperience



"His answers were polite, but retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark made it fairly clear Friday in Chicago that he disagrees with two recent controversial statements Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has made on foreign policy."

More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3431531

[Adelante]

36. Clark did not address this issue - invasion of Pakistan

Which Obama did NOT advocate, anyway.

Clark disagreed with Obama on expressed nuclear weapons policy - taking it off the table.

Clark disagreed with Obama's debate answer on a promise to meet with hostile leaders "without preconditions."

He wasn't asked for, nor did he offer, comment on military incursions into Pakistan based on actionable intelligence and unwillingness or inability on the part of the Pakistanis to go after Al Qaeda themselves.

He also never expressed displeasure with Obama. He indicated he thought both Clinton and Obama understood what this is all about.

[zulchzulu]

42. So I guess Clark is none too pleased with Clinton or Edwards either

Since they both agreed with Obama, it would be interesting to hear what he would say to them as well.

[Major Hogwash]

31. Wait until tonight's debate. Gonna be a hot time in the ol' town tonight.

And it won't be pretty and it won't be scripted.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. An unwanted military entry onto sovereign territory is an invasion

Surely a Harvard lawyer would know the semantics game he is playing...

[KittyWampus]

41. you mean like the USA entering Iraq? Oh wait, that was for regime change and a war crime

whereas sending special forces to capture Osama is tracking down a criminal and thus law enforcement.

[robcon]

43. The coverup by Obama is on.

He misspoke, or he argued for an invasion with or without international approval, and with or without the agreement of the Pakistan government.

[truebrit71]

45. He did neither he has been misquoted...

...big difference...

[Bullet1987]

47. He should have said that today at the debate...

[truebrit71]

48. He did.

.

[beastieboy]

49. I hate how he never backs down when he is wrong and digs himself deeper.