Did anyone read this during the election?

[SIMPLYB1980]

Just wondering for those who say they didn't vote for actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/15/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_96.php

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

1. I did. k&r for a much needed reminder.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. You are welcome.

I think some needed a reminder on what they voted for.

[tyne]

4. I did too

And you didn't have to read just that.

Obama talked about this numerous, probably hundreds of times.

One of the reasons I voted for him.

[tekisui]

3. I remember, and I voted for him.

I still think he is wrong on this, and will continue to criticize the policy until US troops are out of Afghanistan.

He is in the driver's seat now, so I will be more vocal with my criticisms. It doesn't matter to me what he said last year. Things have changed, have gotten worse, and his administration recognizes that, I am sure. The American people are growing tired of wars without end. It won't be politically viable much longer.

[tyne]

5. I suppose it

may seem like a good idea to let AQ take over Pakistan and their nukes.

However, to others...it's not wise.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. +1

[tekisui]

9. lol!

There is no risk of AQ taking over Pakistan. And, what is going on in Pakistan has very little to do with us being in Afghanistan.

[SIMPLYB1980]

7. Kinda surprised I'm not being Flamed for

presenting facts.:kick:

[dionysus]

8. just wait, the "taliban aren't such bad guys" folks'll be along soon enough

;)

[tekisui]

10. If you use that frame, can I call you the "War Fuckin' Rawks Guys"?

[dionysus]

11. no, i'd rather you didn't. there actually are a few posters on here saying the things the taliban

do are "part of their culture", and that westerners shouldn't interfere in their "culture". to me that's wrong.

i'm not advocating more war, in fact i have serious doubts that escalating this could be productive in any way, but i acknowledge that those guys are like stone age barbarians when they throw acid in women's faces or say, kill barbers for cutting hair... they are not good guys at all.

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. Yeah I know that kind of surprises me.

I guess they only care about dead babies when they are our collateral damage, but it's O.K. with them when they are intentionally targeted by terrorist.

[Ysabela]

19. All the Taliban did was replant the opium fields and deny Bush crime family the oil pipeline.

So not giving the US their precious oil pipeline and trying to rid the world of 95% of the world's opium production was worth invading them?

[Cha]

12. And, the White House is changing

policy in Pakistan.

"Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it."

And, this is exactly what Obama said would happen in October 2002..and what many of us thought when we protested before the bombs fell on Iraq.

<snip>

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?"

<more>
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[Peacetrain]

13. Yes I did.. thanks for the reminder..

[HopeOverFear]

15. thanks for the reminder

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. No problem.

Also I would like to say I don't love war, but I do see a need for it still in Afghanistan. Not directed at you I just wanted to state that.

[SIMPLYB1980]

17. Kick

And off to bed.

[jeanpalmer]

18. Isn't abandoning the border

and outlying areas part of the McChrystal strategy? Instead, he plans to withdraw back to the urban areas and defend them. So it looks like all that stuff about defending the border with more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more drones is no longer operative.

He says, "Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states." But sending drones ino Pakistan itself and killing innocent civilians has destabalized the political situation in Pakistan. These attacks make Pakistan's political leaders look like enablers and accomplices to an attack on the country, and the atrocities that have occurred along with it.

I don't see much in his statement that is relevant to current policy. He's obviously trapped in Afghanistan and is trying to figure a way out. Apparently, instead of "taking the fight to the Taliban," he is even considering negotiating with them -- the "more moderare" elements of course. But that's an indication of how desperate they are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6359601/Talibans-Afghan-allies-tell-Barack-Obama-Cut-us-a-deal-and-well-ditch-al-Qaeda.html#

What is a "moderate" Taliban? I thought the Taliban were irreformable evildoers. Anyway, I hope Obama has the good sense to throw the rhetoric overboard and to start down a new path whereby we get out of that godforsaken place.