Sure You Will

UPDATE: I usually put updates at the bottom of a post, but this one needs to be at the top. Says Don Surber of Obama's Pakistan proposal:

Pakistan is only the second largest Muslim country, well-armed with fierce mountain people. I live in West Virginia. Please, watch “Deliverance” before even thinking about taking on mountain people.

Here’s the excerpt concerning going after terrorists in Pakistan--and elsewhere--from Senator Barack Obama’s prepared speech for the Wilson Center. It's failing the laugh test in a lot of quarters.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that [Pakistani] President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. 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 Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

In light of Obama’s staunch opposition to the war in Iraq and his promise, as president, to sit down and talk to the regional dictators such as Syria’s Assad or Iran’s Ahmadenijad, I find his willingness to go into Pakistan to rather curious. Okay, it’s more than curious, it’s straight unformed and uninformed BS. It’s posturing.

Comments

[Stormy70]

Yes, it is really easy to waltz across Pakistan. Terrorists holed up in mountainous terrain are easily dislodged. (rolls eyes).

Pakistan is a modern day Mordor, one does not simply walk into it.

[baldilocks]

A near-perfect analogy.

[Walter E. Wallis]

If Obama really wants to prove his point, he should go to Pakistan right now and capture bin Laden.

[ErikZ]

Er, are we on good terms with Pakistan? That would be news to me.

[baldilocks]

are we on good terms with Pakistan?

Perhaps not with most of the population, but Pakistan's President Musharraf has been an ally in the GWOT. But with the Islamists constantly trying to assassinate him, who knows how long that alliance will last?

[daveinboca]

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

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 dude dumber than dirt?

Too bad you Einsteins weren't around to figure out that the following claims were utter garbage

1. Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa

2. Iraq possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons

3. Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes

4. The Iraq war will be a cakewalk

Oops, you WERE around and couldn't quite figure it out

[ErikZ]

I ignore anonymous comments. Are your words so weak and pathetic that you won't stand behind them?

[Mike Thomas]

Hello,

We would like to do an interview with you about your blog for
www.BlogInterviewer.com . We'd like to give you the opportunity to
give us some insight on the "person behind the blog."

It would just take a few minutes of your time. The interview form can
be submitted online at http://bloginterviewer.com/submit-an-interview

Best regards,

Mike Thomas

[baldilocks]

Anon: 1 is true, 3 and 4 are part of your fantasies. As for 3, Bill Clinton and the European Intel agencies also believed that Iraq had WMD.

But I know that in the world(s) you fantasy-prone sorts create in your heads, only Democrats and Europeans are allowed to be wrong.

[Nick]

I'm glad you admit being wrong about points 2 + 3. Regarding point 4.

A Bush adviser was fired in 2003 for suggesting the war might cost up to $200 billion (actual cost $1 trillion)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/

[baldilocks]

As for 3 should read "as for 2." And your link does nothing to refute the concept of Iraq being a cakewalk since both GWB and then-SECDEF Rumsfeld explicitly said that our efforts there would be tough.