Obama Says He Might Send Troops Into Pakistan to Hunt Down Terrorists Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a town hall meeting, Monday, July 30, 2007, at Roosevelt Middle School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)08-01-2007 9:46 AM
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted _ 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."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.
Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.
The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.
A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.
Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.
Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

God the name calling and B.S. being flung between Clinton and Obama is getting old already.They are both terrible, corrupt, and undeserving of the Presidency of the United States....

__________________
Buds,Buds, and more Buds: Purps + White Russian

How is America allowed by the international community to march into the lands of sovereign nations and take down governments? How would we feel if an army from another country was patrolling our lands? How can we do things to others that we would not want for ourselves?

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." - Noam Chomsky

__________________
BC Mango Harvest

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." - Noam Chomsky

Some very wise words.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

There are several reasons that no government has tried to put a stop to the U.S. invading other countries.

1. We are the only nuclear power to actually use the bomb on people.
2. The U.S. would cut off all types of aid.
3. The government would label them terrorist aiding nations and invade them
as well.
4. If they invaded the U.S., then the government would start using those
bombs from #1 on the invading country.
5. If #4 didn't work, they would drop them on their own citizens/land to end
the invasion.
6. The U.S. has the largest military in the world right now.
7. The "MONEY" given by the U.S. government to the countries of the rest
of the world.... ie: food, medicine, military aide, plus bribes given to have
them vote for what the U.S. wants in the United Nations.

Thats just to name a few reasons why the international community hasn't gotten together to try and stop us.

If Obama wants to invade where terrorists exist, how about invading London?

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

How about invading the white house?

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

I agree

__________________
"We have wasted history like a bunch of drunks shooting dice back in the men's crapper of the local bar."~Charles Bukowski
Rubber Johnny

Chomsky's a brilliant guy, but I wish he'd quit pushing the same damn book under different titles.

__________________
I'm more tongue and cheek than a lesbo orgy.

Like any of the republicans are?
Please tell me where Obama has it wrong. Pakistan isn't doing much to help the US. They Kowtow to the Taliban and Al Qaeda (please don't hurt us) Their intelligence is at best faulty. You worry about the radicles getting a Nuke? This would be a perfect opportunity to have a showdown with the Radical Muslims. But then again this administration isn't serious about fighting a The War Against Terror (T.W.A.T.)
Being Ex-navy, I happen to know that one Air Craft Carrier Strike Force can wipe out a country the size of Iraq or Pakistan in an hour.
Clinton? I think that over 20 years of having either a Clinton or a Bush in office is getting old.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn