Obama’s Blunders Tell Me He’s a Naive Neophyte
By SusanUnPC on December 29, 2007 at 3:29 PM in Afghanistan, Bush/Cheney, Clinton, Counterterrorism, Current Affairs, Obama, Pakistan
I keep thinking about those early December CBS Evening News candidate interviews I mentioned. Each was asked which country scares them the most. Sen. Clinton correctly responded, “Pakistan” (CBS video). Sen. Obama said “Iran,” (CBS video).
It hit me that Obama has drunk the Bush/Cheney/Neo-con “Kool-Aid” exaggerating the threat of Iran — like he bought GOP talking points on Social Security — and hasn’t thought out real global concerns. Partly, it’s that he hasn’t traveled much; Steve Clemons is still trying to get an accurate statement from Obama on his travel history. Nor has he done the hard work: He hasn’t held a single hearing as chair of the Foreign Relations’ subcommittee on European Affairs (which includes NATO and therefore Afghanistan, which Obama loves to bring up as neglected due to Iraq, but which he hasn’t done any “executive decision making” about — more on NATO/Afghanistan below the fold).
Dr. Reza Aslan, in a WaPo op-ed today, hits Obama’s weakness head-on. Obama’s besotted fans, like “conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan” (it’s so odd that there are so many conservative fans of Obama) who “imagine” that “it is Obama’s face — just his face — that ‘proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can’.” Democratic voters had better sober up. It’s “naive, well-meaning, amateurish.” Dr. Aslan, author of No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, continues:
[It is that Obama fans are] convinced that everyone understands the goodness of U.S. intentions — that worries me again these days. That’s because a curious and dangerous consensus seems to be forming among the chattering classes, on both the left and the right, that what the United States needs in these troubling times is not knowledge and experience but a “fresh face” with an “intuitive sense of the world,” and that the mere act of electing Obama will put us on the path to winning the so-called war on terror.
Here’s how Dr. Aslan begins today’s op-ed. It is a statement of warning:
Every time I hear about how Sen. Barack Obama is going to “re-brand” America’s image in the Middle East, I can’t help but think about Jimmy Carter’s toast.
When the idealistic Democrat came to Iran in 1977 to ring in the new year with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the country’s much-despised despot, throngs of young, hopeful Iranians lined the streets to welcome the new American president. After eight years of the Nixon and Ford administrations’ blind support for the shah’s brutal regime, Iranians thrilled to Carter’s promise to re-brand America’s image abroad by focusing on human rights. That call even let many moderate, middle-class Iranians dare to hope that they might ward off the popular revolution everyone knew was coming. But at that historic New Year’s dinner, Carter surprised everyone. In a shocking display of ignorance about the precarious political situation in Iran, he toasted the shah for transforming the country into “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” With those words, Carter unwittingly lit the match of revolution.
It’s just this sort of blunder — naive, well-meaning, amateurish, convinced that everyone understands the goodness of U.S. intentions — that worries me again these days. …
Dr. Aslan addresses the rapturous endorsement of the Boston Globe, and Obama’s failure to do the hard work required to give him necessary experience:
In their glowing endorsement of Obama, the editors of the Boston Globe noted that “the first American president of the 21st century has not appreciated the intricate realities of our age. The next president must.”
True enough. But such “intricate realities” are not best dealt with through “an intuitive grasp of global politics” — Obama’s chief asset, according to the Globe — but through an intimate knowledge of those realities and of the nuanced responses necessary to address them.
Obama may possess all the intuition of a fortuneteller. But as chair of a Senate subcommittee on Europe, he has never made an official trip to Western Europe (except a one-day stopover in London in August 2005) or held a single policy hearing. He’s never faced off with foreign leaders and has no idea what a delicate sparring match diplomacy in the Middle East can be. And at a time in which the United States has gone from sole superpower to global pariah in a mere seven years, these things matter.
The main issue in U.S. foreign policy that the next president will face is repairing our image in the world. But in foreign policy, unlike advertising, image is created through action, not branding. Which is why one cannot help but sense a touch of shirking (not to mention a lack of short-term memory) in all this talk about “intuitive experience” and “re-branding images,” particularly when it comes from those who began the “New American Century” as ardent supporters of Bush’s wars and his self-advertised “gut” instincts.
[T]hese things matter. Indeed they do.
Besides his diligent but frustrating effort to nail down Obama and his campaign staff on the true story of Obama’s travel history, policy expert Steve Clemons is also concerned about Obama’s work ethic in the U.S. Senate — emphasizing that Obama’s subcommittee is very important to Afghanistan:
I tried to deal with the question of how to measure “executive decision making capacity” when looking at legislators last week — and was pretty surprised that Senator Obama did not call a single issue-oriented hearing in his role as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Europe Chairman.
Had Obama held such hearings — or even if he was planning them now for January — he might have highlighted Europe’s remarkable success in scoring the only tangible success with Iran on its nuclear program in September 2003.
Obama might also have focused his attention on Afghanistan — which Axelrod says we’ve all been distracted from — because Obama’s committee has jurisdiction over the foreign relations dimensions of NATO which is deeply embedded in the Afghanistan problem — which of course, is the Pakistan problem.
Indeed. In Deed: Obama’s failure to become active, to even hold a single hearing, to pay attention to Afghanistan or to NATO, has had its impact, in ways we’ll sadly never know about, on the current crisis in Pakistan.
A “face” is nice. A smart man, as Obama is, is also a great thing. But give me the worker. Give me the woman who has traveled the world (83+ countries, several many, many times) and gone to countless remote villages, empowering women through microeconomic grants and more. Give me the one who really gets it done.
It wasn’t that Sen. Clinton was prescient in responding “Pakistan” to the CBS Evening News question in early December. She knew. She knows. She’s done the work. She knows the world, and its complex and rapidly changing issues.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
hahaha. OBAMA has drunk the neo con kool aid?
“Rabbis see Clinton as top Israel backer
A plurality of rabbis named Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate most supportive of Israel.
A synagogue innovation and leadership organization called STAR, Synagogues: Transformation and Renewal, surveyed 200 rabbis of all denominations in its second annual pre-Rosh Hashanah survey.”
jta.org
you wnat the one who gets it done? gets what done? pushing wars for israel through congress?
Hillary is the one who mixes and ladles out the neo con kool aid, ma’am
How is Obama different? I’m talking voting records and policies.
Obama is not significantly different from HRC in that regard. The only significant differences are that we will never know how he would have voted on the bill authorizing the aggression on Iraq, and he has carefully avoided some votes altogether. Regarding the former - the authorization vote - he himself has stated on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know how he would have voted. Based on the rest of his voting record, though, I think it is a fairly safe bet he would have voted the same way Hillary did.
As for his statements regarding policies, there is little significant difference except that he thinks attacking Pakistan is a good idea if Musharraf does not effectively do what he wants him to do, and he apparently thinks they “hate us” merely because of bad P.R., and therefore the only thing that needs to change is the U.S. P.R. strategy, and not its foreign policy - and in that regard he sounds discouragingly like Bush with his slick Arabic youth magazine, and that propaganda channel called Al Hurra that has been such a rousing failure. Oh, yes, and that “Muslims in America” advertising campaign that was the laughing stock of the Arab world.
“The main issue in U.S. foreign policy that the next president will face is repairing our image in the world.”
Well, Obama has the key, as he announced a few months ago in his “major foreign policy speech”. His approach is two-pronged. First, be willing to bomb and invade and meddle in the business of anyone, including an ally, second, while bombing and invading and meddling, send hordes of young, naive American twenty-somethings to tell the world how wonderful America really is (oh yeah, they’ll believe that over the bombs and invasions), and set up American-sponsored internet cafes, and English classes.
“But in foreign policy, unlike advertising, image is created through action, not branding.”
Really?! Wow! No way! Now THAT’s a fresh, new concept!
“ those who began the “New American Century” as ardent supporters of Bush’s wars…”
Like, for example, Hillary?
“…give me the worker. The woman who has traveled the world and gone to countless remote villages, empowering women through microeconomic grants and more. Give me the one who really gets it done.”
Wow - even when you are talking about Obama, you are really talking about Hillary, aren’t you?
No to Obama! No to Hillary!
In its editorial, “The Pakistan Test,” the WaPo editors say:
I would hardly consider the conservative WaPo editorial page an authority on which candidates are “serious”. By serious, they mean which are solid supporters of the Beltway status quo.
I share your concern about Obama, he is not a qualified candidate for President. The problem we have is that those who have the requisite experience are supporters of the same policy framework that has dominated US foreign policy since the end of WWII. The only candidates who seem to recognize the flaws in our insistence on American hegemony and the blowback from our imperial arrogance are fringe candidates with no chance of winning.
If we are hopeful enough to think that electing a Democrat will make a difference then we need to nominate the Democrat who has the best chance of winning - John Edwards, rather than the one who is most despised by both right and left.
Present.
AWOL.
john mcain is serious and substantive? on foreign policy? you cannot believe that statement and be a reader of this blog.
when is the april fools pay off to this ridiculous hillary joke coming? it won’t be soon enough
It is now being reported that Ms Bhutto’s 19 year old son will become the head of her family’s political party. At least he had the great good luck to be educated outside the USA.
Joe Conason in Salon today:
Something else about this issue:
If you were going to run for president, and you were the chair of that important subcommittee, wouldn’t you convene a hearing or two to build up your resume? Of course you would. Unless — sigh — you thought you could just slide on through and get by without doing the work.
If I were chair of an important subcommittee, whether I was going to run for president or not, I hope I would take the responsibility seriously enough to do SOMETHING.
As for his not having paid any visits to Europe as chair of that subcommittee - or, perhaps, ever - that does not surprise me coming from someone who believes he can convince the Muslim world to overlook the U.S.’s terrible conduct there by sending twenty-somethings out to proselytize for America and setting up internet cafes and English classes. It’s just so ignorant and so dumb and so willfully blind on so many different levels.
PS I forgot to point out how incredibly patronizing and condescending it is.
Conason distills it:
“If Obama wants to show where he has been, he merely has to release his passport records. Then everyone would know that his boast about traveling extensively in Europe is true — even if this year he didn’t have time to convene a hearing on the momentous issues affecting our relations with that continent and the world.”
I think it is perfectly fair to analyze any of the candidates, and more than fair to criticize the Axelrod statement (and the Obama failure to defuse / explain / condemn it). But your central “argument” against Obama is equally applicable to your argument itself, being naive and substance free.
Let’s start with Obama’s travels. You may wish to read the recent Q&A from Iowa, in addition to prior comments from fellow Senators documented elsewhere (http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1720). This is simply a storyline being floated in the midst of a campaign, clearly meant to provoke emotion and not thought, or simply to distract, as you more than amply demonstrate.
Perhaps equally, you raise the specter of “convservatives” backing Obama. Really, is it any wonder that dyed-in-the-wool, traditional conservatives find exactly zero in common with today’s GOP? That story has been well documented, and by Andrew Sullivan himself. (And this is not to mention the consistent rabid promotion of Hillary’s candidacy as a fait accompli by many of the existing GOP base, but not conservatives per se. Why? Maybe, just maybe, one would think by getting her as an opponent, the base would get a known quantity that they can once again routinely abuse? By contrast, more than one conservative, not necessarily base, outlet has come around to Obama because of a patent & substantive dislike of Hillary that has grown over the last year.) I am not sure what to make of this being part of your “argument”, save that it appears little more than a cheap shot meant to raise the temperature and avoid substantive discussion.
I think there’s much to the Asian piece, though I would be quick to point out that it clearly reads as more a criticism of “Obamarama” than Obama. While there are nuggets which bolster your extant dislike of him, it’s your dislike and not fact that resonates.
And this is all just Obama in situ, not in comparison. It can equally be said that Hillary has done little more than coattail and carpetbag. (And I say that having lived in Manhattan for 11 years and having voted her into the Senate.) Her “experience” is largely that of being married to Bill and having run a Senatorial campaign against others who summarily dropped out and left the seat to her well before a single lever was pulled; all NYers clearly recognized that nobody would beat someone named Clinton, no matter the qualifications. There is no doubt she is a shrewd tactician and respected in the Senate. But short of any substantive discussion of her “work” or what she “knows” your argument is little more than a sentiment, easily debunked by the inverse sentiments above.
Further, if we are to condemn Obama for his campaign’s misdeeds, then it’s only fair to condemn Hillary for her campaign blunders as well. Or have we conveniently forgotten the recent past? I would argue that Obama’s is a serious but single instance of fault, whereas Hillary’s handful over the last year are yet a continuation of institutional, inside-the-beltway, entitlement-centric crap that has existed left, right and center for so long. If that be even possible, then Hillary hardly represents anything more than a return to infighting & polemics that have defined the last two administrations, not a departure from it.
Lest I be unclear, I share concern over Obama’s experience as well, so my point is not that this concern does not exist or is unfounded, but that your post does little to advance an argument in any material way; it is screed. This is unfortunate since, as a longtime reader of NQ, I have come to expect a hearty steak with my sizzle.
I don’t care for Hillary but Obama’s recent inflammatory rhetoric about Pakistan (”The War We Need to Win,” August 1) showed me that he’s not just inexperienced but profoundly foolish. Why that isn’t testament to why he is not suitable to be president is beyond me. The man publicly boasted about threatening Pakistan! I had initially been ambivalent about him, but that rhetoric made me deeply troubled about his judgment. especially considering he did that to defend himself against charges of being weak and naive after making the claim he’d meet with dictators.
The only candidates that joined him in making similarly outrageous foreign policy statements were the Republicans.
And what about Hillary’s even more recent rhetoric, such as, for example:
“Clinton paid a personal tribute to the former Pakistani prime minister, and also turned on President Pervez Musharraf, saying he had failed both to usher Pakistan towards democracy, and to crush Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
“‘It is also clear the Bush policy of giving Musharraf a blank check has failed,’ Clinton said”
Fascinating! First she pays a personal tribute to Benazir, who during her term in office nurtured the Taliban into power (and by the way, so much for Benazir’s support of women’s rights), and then she turns on Musharraf for failing to crush what his oh, so praiseworthy predecessor created.
You’re comparing criticism of Musharraf with threatening to invade Pakistan?! Bizarre. What part of her criticism, shared by others, isn’t legitimate?
And every candidate praised Bhutto, not just her. How does any of their praise for a recently assassinated politician translate into support for every policy enacted while she was PM, especially considering the circumstances of Pakistan where the military and intelligence services run the show and that all the candidates have condemned the Taleban and al-Qaeda?
What the hell is your point?
I even said from the beginning that I didn’t care for Hillary and yet in response to my criticism of Obama you just bizarrely went after her? And let’s pretend their remarks on Pakistan are actually on par with each other, how does that excuse his? Criticizing Clinton doesn’t in itself validate Obama.
“You’re comparing criticism of Musharraf with threatening to invade Pakistan?!”
What I am suggesting is that this is not a time to be making statements against Pakistan’s head of state.
It is also worth mentioning here that when it comes to bellicose statements, Hillary has done her share, including stating her willingness to consider a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear country that has no history at all of attacking or invading another country.
“What part of her criticism, shared by others, isn’t legitimate?”
Whether it is legitimate or not is irrelevant. It is ill-timed to say the least. Be sure that I am no fan of Musharraf (although not for the reasons Hillary is complaining about), but her making those sorts of comments is hardly helpful under the circumstances.
“And every candidate praised Bhutto, not just her. How does any of their praise for a recently assassinated politician translate into support for every policy enacted while she was PM…”
Pardon me for not being more clear. I was attempting to point to the irony (or hypocrisy?) of praising the person who helped bring the Taliban to power while condemning her successor for not crushing what she so carefully nurtured.
And by the way, it is not a matter of translating praise for her into support for every policy. It is, instead, a matter of praise that amounts to hagiography and that is virtually always 180 degrees from reality.
“What the hell is your point?”
See above.
“…in response to my criticism of Obama you just bizarrely went after her?…Criticizing Clinton doesn’t in itself validate Obama.”
Nor does criticizing Obama validate Hillary, and yet for days we have had a steady diet of criticism - even vilification at times - of Obama that has been accompanied virtually EVERY SINGLE TIME by some video, or quote, or remark, or even a photo of Hillary and Chelsea costumed up as rich Pakistani ladies. The intention of that could not be more blatant. Even when it seems to be about Obama, it is really about Hillary.
As I have made very clear here on numerous occasions, much to the annoyance of Susan and some others, based on their records and their statements I would not consider voting for either Hillary or Obama, and it disappoints me to see this site used to promote Hillary by bashing Obama.
I am not a Hillary supporter–at all! As if that should matter. Obama’s Pakistan rhetoric is most alarming. Period. Why you can’t see that is beyond me. His policy would be disastrous; hell, just his rhetoric was cause for worry in Pakistan. And since his whole campaign is about “judgement” it destroys his validity as a candidate. I wasn’t a supporter of his before (nor was I against him), but this caused me to be certain, especially in light of Bhutto’s killing, that we cannot afford an Obama presidency.
And? There are other candidates beyond Obama and Clinton. Besides, Clinton’s rhetoric does not excuse Obama (By the way, when did Clinton make equally inflammatory rhetoric–launching preemptive strikes against a nuclear power or Muslim “ally”–when a country was on the brink of chaos?)
Nathan, we are really not that far apart, are we? In terms of foreign policy, I do not find either Hillary or Obama acceptable. Isn’t that where you stand?
What I have been objecting to is the practice we have seen here lately of promoting Hillary by appearing to focus on Obama’s flaws. The reality is that Obama and Hillary have very similar records in regard to foreign policy, international law, and military policies, and I do not find one preferable to the other.
Hillary has a record of strongly supporting the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq in both word and deed.
Obama has an equivocal record on the invasion of Iraq, and has on every occasion voted the same as HRC has on other matters concerning Iraq.
Both have made it clear that they are in no hurry to withdraw from Iraq, and have no real intention of pulling out all the troops in the foreseeable future.
Both have demonstrated that they consider military action to be not purely a means of self defense, but primarily a tool to be used to dominate and enforce the will of the United States government on other countries.
Both have declared their intention to increase the size and budget of the military, which is only necessary if they intend to keep troops in Iraq while increasing the U.S. military presence - probably mostly by force - in other countries.
Both of them have made bellicose statements against countries that did not pose a threat to the United States.
Obama has some really goofily clueless and ideas about “why they hate us”, and a completely idiotic, Bush-like take on how to overcome that problem.
Hillary has never met a military action she didn’t enthusiastically support.
Hillary has for years been one of AIPAC’s favourite darlings.
Since becoming a presidential candidate Obama has quietly abandoned his support for Palestinian rights, and moved into AIPAC’s territory.
The bottom like is that when it comes to foreign policy there is very little difference between Hillary and Obama, and they are both much too close to the Bush regime for my comfort.
No to Hillary. No to Obama.
One more thing: If Clinton’s experience is null even though she’s been in the senate longer than Obama, what’s his “experience?” He’s failed to show leadership in the short time he’s been in the senate, his voting record and policies on Iraq are the same as Clinton’s, and he continues to sell himself primarily b/c of his childhood travels and his biracial identity (The other day Obama talked about how having a grandmother who lives in a hut in Kenya shows he understands how the world sees us; this, oddly enough, was said immediately after he dismissed Clinton’s experience as having “tea”).
It seems that people confuse criticism of her with somehow validating Obama as a worthy candidate. People seem to be voting not for Obama but against Clinton and/or a projection of their desires in a candidate.* When I look at Obama alone, I don’t see anything resembling leadership, judgment, or experience. I agree that Clinton’s political lineage won’t cut it (if you want to completely dismiss her senate years, which is foolish but whatever), but neither will image.
*I honestly think even Hillary is better than Obama in terms of policies (health care, social security, global warming), judgment (Pakistan!, Mukasey nomination, the Mining Act of 1872, McClurkin, etc.), and even leadership (Obama hasn’t held a meeting for the one leadership post he does have). Hell, even Hillary didn’t condemn MoveOn, unlike Obama.
I agree with the spirit of your comment, which is why I criticized the original post. Indeed, you write: “If Clinton’s experience is null even though she’s been in the senate longer than Obama, what’s his ‘experience?’”
Precisely the point. If we are to levy a charge against either for having / lacking experience, then we ought to define what that experience is (and then debate the merits) lest it negate the argument either way. I personally am not arguing pro or con anyone, simply that if there is an argument put forth, it should be done so fairly.
That said, image or like-ability is still, like it or lump it, a very important part of the election process. On that particular point, and only by observation and not personal opinion, who honestly is more likeable? Seriously, let’s remember that whatever other issues surrounded either candidate at the time, the country still elected the guy they wanted to have a beer with. Image goes a long way to electability, and what happens thereafter. On this score, even in the case of a Hillary ascendency, what is the likelihood that she will be able to accomplish anything?
I suspect there’s another aspect to all of this, which is the historical difficulties for a Senator to get elected. That is very, very interesting especially because a voting record can be sound-bited a zillion different ways (eg Obama’s “present” votes, Hillary’s votes on Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman).
You also write, “It seems that people confuse criticism of her with somehow validating Obama as a worthy candidate.” I couldn’t agree more, which is again why I lamented this post — it found fault in one candidate, so therefore commuted promotion to another. It’s a faulty argument on its face. (And, I should hasten to add, why it is encouraged to isolate an issue and compare; that is fair.) Not that your comment was directed at me, but I don’t confuse that criticism; I tried to insert it only for demonstration purposes since it didn’t exist in the original post.
Sure, I understand.
On image: Of course, Hillary is hated but she has been a successful senator (Hell, somehow she managed to neuter her once-sworn enemies). And the knives will be out in full force for any Democrat–unless they act like Joe Lieberman. There’s nothing about Obama that shows any history of using all that charm of his to pass substantial legislation against firm opposition, even on a state level. So somehow believing it’ll just magically happen as president is bull. Even as a minority, the GOP has been ruthless while the Democrats have been cowards.
Besides, we’re in a desperate state and we can’t afford just image. Worse, Obama combines image with a disturbing level of foreign policy inexperience. Nothing more cemented my fears of an Obama presidency than Bhutto’s assassination. His earlier inflammatory rhetoric about invading Pakistan disturbed me back in August in his complete disregard for the situation, but combining that with his campaigns response to Bhutto’s killing sealed it: He’s grossly irresponsible and ignorant (Putting aside Axelrod’s smearing of Clinton, his argument, defended by Obama, that al-Qaeda or “terrorists” inspired by Iraq played a role showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Pakistani political history).
On comparing candidates: the reason I looked at Obama alone was to see whether he qualified as a presidential candidate. In my eyes, he didn’t. We’re in a desperate state and we’re voting for what exactly? There’s no leadership experience or wise judgment/political courage when the chips were down. And his policies on major issues are either the worst of the top 3 (health care, social security, for ex.) or the same as others, which have questionable chance of passing anyways in Washington considering his quest for “bipartisanship.” His fundamental selling point (”I was right on Iraq!”) completely fails as well since his voting record (i.e. funding an unending war) and policies are the same as Clinton’s.
My candidate is Edwards–by far. And the best part, I’m voting for him–completely. Everything about his candidacy I support; he’s got it all: experience, policy, leadership, courage, and effectiveness. I’ve never met a candidate like that before. The man is the fighting leader we desperately need right now. And he’s the only one who has any chance of beating the GOP in Washington.
This review has some interesting historical context as it relates to the Pakastan of today. While debunking some stuff, it does point out that the CIA was not able to control what happened to the financial suppport that was sent to the region.
Note to self: there is the number 1.5 billion again.
Chalire Wilson’s War.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/71286/?page=2
“Pakistan nurtured the Taliban into power.”
That would, to be specific, be Benazir Bhutto who nurtured the Taliban into power.
Actually, to be accurate: the intelligence services did that. They’re beholden only to themselves.
The Pakistani intelligence services, of course.
While debunking some stuff, it does point out that the CIA was not able to control what happened to the financial suppport that was sent to the region
History being repeated.
Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup, has been doing some plundering of his own. Congress is now probing $5 billion in U.S. military aid that has gone unaccounted for.
The funds were intended to help the Pakistani military attack al-Qaida in the tribal areas, but reports say they were diverted instead to help buy weapons designed to attack India, Pakistan’s arch foe.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/071227/issues.html?.v=1
That was the guy who escaped recently? The MSM made it seem like a jailbreak.
(from link)
Present
Correction: WE nurtured the Taliban into power in Afghanistan. We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban in the fight against the Soviets. Its a classic example of creating the monster you have to confront later.
What is convienient today most often bites us in ass later…
Oh, you can be sure that Benazir was very much part of that project.
some kinda MatriX
Aunt Benazir’s false promises…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bhutto14nov14,0,2482408.story?coll=la-opinion-center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Policy_on_Taliban
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_
She was expendable and wasn’t supposed to keep talking either.
The BBC censored the tape where Bhutto said that Osama was killed.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/bbc-censored-benazir-bhuttos-reports.html
I believe it’s still available online at Al Jazeera English’s YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ&
The Obama/Axelrod gaffe over Bhutto may be unimportant, but his “War We Must Win” caused important trouble in Pakistan — and there’s a troubling pattern in his response.
Both times that he (or his surrogate) said something upsetting, instead of immediately trying to defuse it, he defended it, escalating it.
http://1950democrat.livejournal.com
[...] “Be Obama’s European Tour Guide Contest.” I wrote many articles, including “Obama’s Blunders Tell Me He’s a Naive Neophyte.” I keep thinking about those early December CBS Evening News candidate interviews I [...]
united states government grants direct…
It sounds interesting but I am not sure that I agree with you completely….
Jim Spence…
…
[...] vain ignoramus By docweasel Ignorant of protocol. Ignorant of history. Ignorant of executive expertise. Obama is blowing the Socialized Health Care takeover on every level (via Redstate): After [...]