Obama's Terrorism Speech: Another Break With Democratic Party Orthodoxy

[babylonsister]

Obama's Terrorism Speech: Another Break With Democratic Party Orthodoxy


Barack Obama's August 1 speech outlining an aggressive anti-terrorist policy is part of the Illinois Senator's larger campaign strategy, demonstrating his willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy -- defying teachers' unions, proponents of racially based affirmative action, and Democratic constituencies wary of the use of force.

Obama, the first African American with a serious shot at winning the Democratic presidential nomination, warned in his Washington address today at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that as president he would be willing to unilaterally attack al Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.... There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

In his speech Obama sought to affirm his credentials as a prospective Commander in Chief who would not only end the war in Iraq, but who would also aggressively mount an offensive against Islamic terrorists.

His posture provoked immediate criticism from some quarters.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html

[polichick]

1. It was a great speech...almost

Sorry Obama-people-in-denial, but that one line was too reminiscent of the testosterone soaked "axis of evil" days. He should have said that we would get bin Laden, period. No need to point fingers at Musharraf ~ calling him out in public like that was counterproductive (ask any anthropologist who understands the region).

[rodeodance]

2. This is too much like a pre-emptive invasion of another country. Something

just does not sit right with this.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Yeah I need another war presidunce.

Sorry but there is no "liberal orthodoxy" anymore, and the "Democratic Party Orthodoxy" is to be at least as fucked up as Republicans on 'difficult' issues.

Invading Pakistan is idiocy.

Obama

[Major Hogwash]

4. If Osama bin Laden was hiding in Cuba would we go after him?

Or would we allow him to live out the rest of his life comfortably in a country that is a "safe haven" for him?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. You Forgot The Part Where He Says We're Going To Invade Pakistan!

I'm assured by many on DU that he said we're going to invade. You don't want me to believe that Obama merely said that he's going to take out some specific bad guys that launched an attack on the US, killing thousands?

:sarcasm:

[endarkenment]

9. Sending your military forces into another nation

without their permission is commonly referred to as 'an invasion'. We have spent the last 50+ years, my entire life, treating the rest of the nations of this planet with contempt. We have taken that attitude to the breaking point with the current president and his gang of thugs. I do not need another regime determined to continue the same failed policies, determined to appear to be a bigger badder bully in this world than the other party. I don't need more of the same thanks: this shit sandwhich never tasted good to begin with.

Long ago Sen Kerry briefly had it right: bin laden and al qaeda are criminals and need to be dealt with by law enforcement. And then the usual gang of beltway idiots read him the riot act.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. For the first time, I now consider supporting Obama.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.... There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

This, my friends, is Presidential.
(And OK, second time. First time was his superlative convention speech for John Kerry.

[Ethelk2044]

7. Edwards, Hillary, Biden and Richard Clark all Agrees with Obama

[robcon]

8. That's not true, Ethelk2044

Edwards and Clinton would not unilaterally invade Pakistan. Nice try.

[Mass]

10. Neither would Obama. Nice try.

BTW, did Clinton invade Afghanistan and Sudan?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

[BluegrassDem]

11. True, Clinton bombed Sudan

Obama would do the same in Pakistan. I don't see a problem with it. Whatever it takes to make sure America is not hit again, is fine with me.

[robcon]

12. Bill Clinton invaded Afghanistan and Sudan.

Hillary Clinton, rightfully, denounced Obama's plan.

Did Bill Clinton announce he would unilaterally invade Pakistan - with or without the agreement of the government of Pakistan or international approval??? No, he invaded on the basis of intelligence, and acted immediately. Obama is giving bin Laden a year and a half to recruit vigorously in Pakistan, since he has announced he will invade if/when he becomes president.

Stupid strategy. Even stupider to announce it now.

[Adelante]

13. Do you have a link to her denouncement?

In her radio interview yesterday she seemed basically in agreement with Obama's statement regarding actionable intelligence and follow through. Thanks.

Now, it is not true that Obama has announced any invasion of Pakistan. Simply not true.

[Adelante]

14. Yesterday

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country." But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. "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://marcambinder.theatlantic.com /