Obama: It Was Fun While It Lasted

Update: Some are complaining that I characterized Obama's statement as "invading" Pakistan, when he's only advocating "a strike." As Allah mentions, Bush has already made that statement. I've also placed a line from the wire story below in bold. If you think we're going to draw a bead on Osama in the Tribal Areas today and push a button, or send 100 troops in to take him out, you haven't read much about the area. This isn't 1990-something and we didn't even know where Osama actually was when there was all that talk about Tora Bora. That he has ever been truly within our grasp post 9/11 is a myth. Obama is either saying nothing new at all, or suggesting we get into an incredibly costly, in lives, effort to root out Bin Laden. But it doesn't matter - if his poll numbers are bad now, just watch them drop from here. He's done ... it's over. Get over it. His inexperience is starting to show and we aren't even close to crunch time. He's mostly image but hasn't done the hard and sophisticated political work over the years. The guy was a state senator for a district in Illinois less than three years ago for heaven's sake. If he really wants to be President, he should leave the Senate and run for Governor next chance he gets.

And finally, any story that has Obama and Osama in the same graph, isn't exactly helpful for him in the grand scheme.

Stick a fork in Obama, he's done. And not simply because his suggesting he'd invade Pakistan will destroy his uber-Peacenik cred. If you think Iraq and Afghanistan are tough, read up on Pakistan's Tribal Areas. Then add to that the instability of Musharraf's regime. Obama just left himself wide open for attack from the Left, the Right and world leaders and diplomats who never think it's a good idea when a would be American President makes noise about invading another land. Musharraf himself is liable to come out with a, "this is not helpful" statement. And he'd be correct.

This is what happens when the media falls in love with a rank amateur, elevating him to a position in American politics well before his time. The Clinton Machine didn't even fully box him into making this unforced error. They were only jabbing at him. If they ever start really whoopin' on this guy, it could become too ugly to watch.

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."

My, my, my ... Obama a unilateralist? Who woulda thunk it? More importantly, who would believe it? This is political posturing at its worst. It suggests he'd put American lives at risk just to make himself look strong and nothing else in his background indicates he is strong on National Defense. That only makes him look reckless, as well as insincere. Yeah, that's what we want in a President, alright. Hillary just locked up the nomination and I still say Richardson gets the second slot.

Comments

[bryce]

The tribal areas in Pakistan are a safe haven for terrorists, at least Obama is will to admit that their is a problem and try to figure out a solution, more thatn any other candidate is doing at this point.

[Your culinary skills suck]

Obama never said he would invade the country. He said he would have let go foward the targeted strike of Al-Qaeda that Bush aborted and let bin Laden go free. There is a world of difference between a targeted strike and an invasion. Furthermore, you really are being uncreative and knee-jerk in your response. This is obviously an implicit attack on the Clintons, as the Clintons refused to take out Osama by missile when they had him in their crosshairs because Sandy Berger suspected they lacked proper authorization. Playing up the invasion spin just misses the point.

[IslamoLlama]

Shit. If Obama invaded Pakistan, he might catch Osama. Isn't catching OBL a Republican Party Platform (kinda like banning abortion and restoring dignity to the White House)?

I know a number of people who'd be laughing their asses off if Obama caught Osama. The majority of them wouldn't be conservatives.

[templar knight]

Obama advocating an invasion of the NWFP. Fricking surreal. But watch the useful idiots get in line right behind Obama, and proceed to back military action in Pakistan only after their "boy" advocates it. Hell, I been asking for force to be used against the Taliban/AQ forces in Pakistan for years. And did Ziffy the Islamo pig ever agree with me on that? Hell, no.

[chris]

Didn't the "War President" say that he doesn't think too much about bin Laden?? Quite a guy you rednecks voted for (twice).

[templar knight]

chris, when referring to you, useless idiot would be more accurate. But I see you were first in line, nonetheless. Congratulations. And that SURGE is working. Oh, how that must hurt you! Amen!

[Purple Avenger]

Obama is a moron. He needs to look at a few topographical maps before spouting this nonsense.

[Fred Beloit]

"Didn't the "War President" say that he doesn't think too much about bin Laden?"

Perhaps that is because ole Binny is dead or at least immobilized?

[JoeCitizen]

Ah, so we are to accept that Dan has the slightest clue when it comes to making electoral predictions? That pretty funny.

Here is the clue you are missing Dan. Obama's approach is the very approach that George Bush coulda, shoulda taken all along. That is what would have maintained his 90% approval rating, and actually done something to advance the security of this country.

Yeah, he had 90% approval when he went after the people who attacked us. This isn't rocket science, y'know. Terrorists come here and murder 3000, we go out and wipe them out. Rightwing, middlewing, leftwing - everybody is on board with that.

But this president dreams up some cockamamie idea of invading Iraq, of all places, and creating a new "central front" against the terrorists who werent there in the first place. And the little sheep on the right fall into line without a second thought.

Obama's approach is what ALL Americans supported to begin with, and most Americans want to get back to. And even you rightwingers will probably fall in line eventually.

[templar knight]

If OBL was alive, I doubt whether the likes of al Libi would be the one making AQ declarations calling for the overthrow of Musharraf. Bin Laden is most likely pushing up daisies somewhere in the NWFP. As a matter of fact, I would love for old chris to be in the NWFP right now, sitting in a cave, drinking tea and planning mischief. chris would be right at home. Amen!

[templar knight]

Crap, JoeCitizen, don't you even bother to read the other posts before you comment? Many here had called for incursions into Pakistan, and you libs on this blog threw a hissy fit. Now you support an invasion. As I said before, fricking surreal. After your "boy" advocates it, you jump right on board. Unbelievable.

[chris]

I wonder if this guy is busy praying for the troops??

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9002266

Thanks be to God.

[IslamoLlama]

"Obama is a moron. He needs to look at a few topographical maps before spouting this nonsense."

Gee, all I'm looking at is WMDs as far as the eye can see, PA. That means we get to drop all logistical and strategical considerations and go in guns blazing, right?

Oh, no wait. The wingnuts want to invade scary, scary Iran.

The fact that you guys can honestly deride Obama for talking about military action in Pakistan (not against Pakistan, just in Pakistan) when your own Presidential candidates are trying to one-up each other on how badly they're going to nuke Tehran, is freak'n hilarious.

It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

[narciso]

Like the Bajaur strike in Jan 2006; which missed Zawahiri, but netted two AQ regional commanders, and the strike that took out Hamiz Rabia, a few monthes before. But clearly Obama doesn't mean that; does he.

[templar knight]

You seem to have lost interest in The Surge, chris, why is that? You are probably just praying for the success of our Iraq mission in private. Amen. Continue on, brave patriot.

[JoeCitizen]

templar,

Y'all havent been paying attention much these past 5 years, have you?
Democrats have been arguing nonstop about how Iraq was a distraction from the real war against al-Q.

"Hell, I been asking for force to be used against the Taliban/AQ forces in Pakistan for years."

Oh really. Then can I assume that you stood with, and voted for, the people who agreed with you on that, or have you been, foolishly, mistakenly, backing the moron who threw half a trillion dollars and a good chunk of our military resources on a sideshow?

And of course, if you could temper your instinct to insult and ridicule others, and take yourself seriously, can we assume that you are now an Obama supporter, since he is coming out for the very thing that you have been advocating for years, and that hasnt been done? Or are you just in this for the game?

[chris]

The surge? Does anyone other than you sad deadenders really care about the 'last throes' of your leader's Fiasco?? Have your summer of fun. Wave your flags. Support your troops. Cause come September the party will start to wrap up.

[moderationbarryg]

I think we conservatives are making a mistake in claiming that we can never invade or attack Pakistan or any part of the Islamic World for that matter. We should worry when our opinions match the meme's of the MSM. Are critics of invading Pakistan really saying "Hand's off the Islamic world?"

These killers have been hiding in Musharref's country since 2001. If he cannot or will not get them, we can and must.

Obama is not ready to be president of anything, but going after our enemies anywhere and at anytime is a d#@m good idea.

Are we really saying that if terrorists have a safe haven in "Tribal Areas" there is nothing we can do? Let's go get them under Republican watch and let's not join the chorus of the MSM cowards in proclaiming the Tribal Areas of anywhere undefeated.

[JammieWearingFool]

The Magic Negro is toast.

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2007/08/magic-negro-may-send-troops-into.html

[templar knight]

JoeCitizen...I rarely support someone based on one particular issue. Obama may be partially right in advocating incursions into the NWFP, however, any pressure on Musharraf would be counterproductive, as he is hanging on by his fingernails right now. Bush has approved attacks on the Taliban/AQ alliance that exists in the tribal regions, and I support them. I doubt whether an all-out invasion would be productive, as it would likely cause a coup in Islamabad and the acquisition of nuclear bombs by the Taliban/AQ.

It seems odd that you would criticize me for ridicule and insults, yet say nothing to the likes of chris and the IslamoLlama, who have done nothing but insult and ridicule from the first time they came here. I suppose that mote in your eye has affected your vision.

[Po' Boy]

Interesting - watch Obama and his supporters morph into a born-again chickenhawk unilateralists. This week, anyway.

IslamoLlama – I think you are engaged in a lost cause. After all, invading Pakistan will make a lousy bumper sticker: WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER - EXCEPT MAYBE IN PAKISTAN IF DONE BY A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IN WHICH CASE IT IS ONLY MILITARY ACTION IN PAKISTAN, NOT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST PAKISTAN. Hmmmm…..not exactly catchy.

Speaking of which ... Here are those non-existent Iraqi WMDs that are blocking your vision:

http://instapundit.com/images/Iraqdoc.pdf

OOPS - I forgot, WMDs found in Iraq are magically not WMDs, just as there was never a Holocaust. Both were dastardly neocon myths. I stand chastised.

[Dan Riehl]

"I think we conservatives are making a mistake in claiming that we can never invade or attack Pakistan or any part of the Islamic World"

Just for the record - I'm not suggesting any such thing. In the first place, there are many places within the Islamic world I'd support invading, including Iraq. As regards the Tribal Areas, I haven't said we shouldn't "act" in those regions. I know we have, suspect we are now and have little doubt we will again in the future. What we won't and shouldn't do is call what amounts to press conference and announce it to the whole world, not because of Islam, but because of Musharraf.

[Dan Riehl]

To follow up my own comment - there are things you say and things you do in this realm. I don't believe for a minute Obama will do what needs be done - and now he has proven he will say what he shouldn't for a perceived short-term politcal gain. He's wrong coming and going on this one.

[moderationbarryg]

dear Dan

Thanks for the clarification. The conversation acroos the web today conflated a critique of Obama with a narrative that we cannot and should not do anything about Pakistan, that Musharraf was doing all he could, and that somehow invading Pakistan would not be possible.

My guess is that Americans will like the idea that we go after Al Quaeda, and we shouldn't be outflanked, especially since, as you say, Obama would do no such thing. In 1960 JFK made Nixon look like a Peace Protestor over a non-existent missile gap. It is always possible that the American people will hear the MSM denouncing Obama as a "loose cannon" and LIKE him.

We should not be lured into declaring anyone's candidacy dead.

Thanks again.

[daveinboca]

Let's see. He'll talk without preconditions to such dependable friendly types as Ahmadildojihad, Lil' Kim, the bearded dictator just south of Key West, plus Chubby Hugo and the stick-insect in Damascus.

But he'll invade Pakistan, an ally with nuclear weapons whose leader is barely hanging onto power versus whack-job nutso jihadists, to show he knows more about foreign policy than any other presidential candidate.

Am I missing something? Or is this Obama dude dumber than dirt? And is Chillary right, much as I hate to say it, when she observes he is gullible and naive?

[Terry Gain]

He wants to abandon one ally which is fighting al Qaeda. And he wants to invade another ally. That's right. Give up one ally and risk losing another. Why this guy Obama is a true liberal genius. He's right up there with Chris and BoobinStamford.

[templar knight]

"....true liberal genius..."

Now that made me laugh!

[paul]

I think it shows that Obama's team is smart.

The liberal dems don't care about foreign policy, they won't discuss what happens to Iraq if we leave early, and they would never weigh the consequences of invading Pakistan.

It is the ultimate 'live for today, do what you want'-ignore consequences theme, consistent with many democratic primary voters.

[moderationbarryg]

I agree with Paul. I think this move by Obama, as false as it is, will also play well with everyday Americans. They will say that Obama is like Bush in 2003, willing to take the fight to the terrorists. Conservatives should think twice before they take positions that the MSM and the democrat party establishment take.

It will be interesting to see if Obama can spin this as his "courage" to think outside the Beltway, a position that always works.

[Fred Beloit]

This statement should be reviewed during this discussion:

"Michael F. Scheuer, the founding head of the CIA's bin Laden unit: Senator Obama must have left a couple zeroes off his plan for reinforcements. Two brigades -- which is about 6,000 men -- will not make a lick of difference in Afghanistan, which is a country the size of Texas, with the highest mountains on earth, a hostile population, and a growing Islamist insurgency. If Obama starts talking about 100 brigades -- about 300,000 men -- then the public might be able to assume he means business. Otherwise, he is just blowing smoke. Obama and all the other candidates in the other parties constantly say that "we have tried the military option and it does not work." This of course is a bald lie; U.S. military power has been used most daintily in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the military power we have delivered in both places so far is the best we can do, then American taxpayers have been monumentally swindled in the amount of taxes they have paid for their military during the past 25 years. And another billion dollars for aid for Afghan reconstruction would just be another billion wasted. It appears that Obama and his fellow candidates in both parties have not learned that programs for economic recovery, internal stability, and nation-building cannot be started with any hope of effectiveness and durability until the enemy has been definitively annihilated. If Obama is right and the military option has failed, then more aid is just throwing money away because -- as all can see -- the enemy is growing in size and ferocity and shows no signs of being on the edge of annihilation."

[Fred Beloit]

From Mr Cristamfordmum:
"I know a number of people who'd be laughing their asses off if Obama caught Osama. The majority of them wouldn't be conservatives."

I find this a very odd reaction from the Left. But, when they figure out that their two leading contenders for President are hawks, well, what else could they say? Personally, I'm now laughing my a-- off because it turns out Clinton and Obama are hawks.